Search Results for: ronald stein

Stein: Fossil Fuels are the Basis of the Medical industry and Food supply chains

Pursuing the elimination of fossil fuels would put billions at risk as renewable breezes and sunshine only generate electricity. With Biden apparently pro-humanity with his COVID vaccination campaign to save thousands, how dare he, a pro-humanity individual, support banishment of fossil fuels, when their banishment would be the greatest threat to civilization resulting in billions dying from starvation, diseases, and weather-related deaths?

How do you destroy an economy making a nation more like the Third World then a prosperous place—control the food supply.

Under Biden’s plan to rid America of fossil fuels, such a plan would eliminate the medical industry that is totally reliant on the products made from petroleum derivatives, and eliminate oil-based fertilizers to grow the crops that feed the 8 billion on planet earth. Surprisingly, Biden must be oblivious to the consequences of his plan as efforts to cease the use of oil could be the greatest threat to civilization, not climate change.

Biden supports the end of fracking, oil exploration, and oil importing which cuts off the supply chain of crude oil to refineries. Without any crude oil to manufacture, elimination of the supply chain to the 131 operating refineries in the U.S. would eliminate that manufacturing sector.”

Fossil Fuels are the Basis of the Medical industry and Food supply chains

Breezes and sunshine that generate intermittent electricity, cannot manufacture the oil derivatives that support the 8 billion on this planet.

 
By Ronald Stein, CFACT,  10/20/21 

Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure, Irvine, California

Under Biden’s plan to rid America of fossil fuels, such a plan would eliminate the medical industry that is totally reliant on the products made from petroleum derivatives, and eliminate oil-based fertilizers to grow the crops that feed the 8 billion on planet earth. Surprisingly, Biden must be oblivious to the consequences of his plan as efforts to cease the use of oil could be the greatest threat to civilization, not climate change.

Biden supports the end of fracking, oil exploration, and oil importing which cuts off the supply chain of crude oil to refineries. Without any crude oil to manufacture, elimination of the supply chain to the 131 operating refineries in the U.S. would eliminate that manufacturing sector.

Without refineries there will be none of the oil derivatives that are manufactured from crude oil that are the basis of more than 6,000 products  in our economy and lifestyles.

Without the supply chain of crude oil, not only is the refining industry history, but the domino effects are the destructive impacts on the medical, food supply, electronics, and communications industries as they are all totally dependent on the products made from oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil. Any grade school educated kid can understand that breezes and sunshine, can only make weather-dependent intermittent electricity.

The medical industry is reliant on the products derived from the derivatives manufactured from oil that produce all the critical medical equipment like ultrasound systems, defibrillators, exhalation valves, inhalation valves, CT systems, X-ray, medicines, masks, gloves, soap and hand sanitizers for hospitals, and protective gowns, gloves and face shields gear for doctors and nurses. 

Is Biden oblivious to the fact that all those medical products begin from crude oil, or as the Wall Street Journal states – Big Oil to the Coronavirus Rescue? Vaccines need refrigeration, and refrigeration need electricity, especially in the hospital sector where redundant generation capacity for continuous uninterruptable electricity is a mandate.

While Biden attempts to lower emissions at any cost, in favor of some weather-dependent electricity from breezes and sunshine that can only survive with massive subsidies, coal imports and exports continue to increase internationally to meet the electricity generation needs of developing countries as reflected in the Merrill Lynch Global Energy Weekly report.

At least 80 percent of humanity, or more than 6 billion in this world cannot subsidize themselves out of a paper bag as they are living on less  than $10 a day. To reduce emissions in the developing countries that control most emissions, the wealthy countries would need to step up and subsidize electricity generation from breezes and sunshine, to replace more than 3,000 coal fired power plants in developing countries like China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Africa, and Vietnam with billions of people seeking affordable electricity.

The oil that reduced infant mortality, extended longevity to more than 80+ and allowed the world to populate to from 1 to 8 billion in less than 200 short years, is now required to provide the food, medical, communications, and transportation infrastructures to maintain and grow that population.

A key question for President Biden before America attends the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Conference in Glasgow, Scotland in November:

Getting-off-fossil fuels would reverse most of the progress humanity has made over the last few centuries. The inventions of the automobile, airplane, and the use of petroleum in the early 1900’s led us into the Industrial Revolution and victories in World Wars I and II. The healthier and wealthier countries of today now have more than 6,000 products that did not exist a few hundred years ago, all manufactured from fossil fuels, the same fossil fuels that Biden wants to eliminate.

Under Biden’s plan to rid American lifestyles and economies of fossil fuels, such a plan would ground the military, space program, and Air Force 1. It would also mothball the huge energy demands of airlines, cruise ships and merchant ships, as well as eliminate the medical industry, electronics industry, and the communications industry that are totally reliant on the 6,000 products made from petroleum derivatives.

The first use of oil-based fertilizers took place in 1946, and today our food supply is dependent on hydrocarbons. The world’s population of 8 billion souls depends on oil-based fertilizers to grow the crops and feed the animals that are consumed each year. Any cessation of hydrocarbons will immediately result in the annihilation of billions of souls, returning the globe to a 1950 population count of approximately 2.5 billion souls.

How can a pro-humanity President Biden support COVID injections to save thousands of lives, and simultaneously support ridding the world of fossil fuels that would be the greatest threat to civilization resulting in billions dying from starvation, diseases, and weather-related deaths?

Stein: Harm from war on hydrocarbons exceeds harm from climate change

Years ago, thanks to a polemic written by Rachel Carson, “The Silent Spring”, DDT was outlawed in Africa.  As a result, hundreds of thousands of Africans die of malaria.  Americans were also harmed by this junk science book by a radical.  Now, similar people are telling us to do away with fossil fuel—after w have done this with nuclear and coal as a source of energy.  Now we pay more, get less, have unstable energy sources—but feel good about it.  Shame on us for listening to the hacks of science and politics.  Dr. Fauci:

“Human beings were not present during any of those previous ice ages and warming cycles, but the SUN was here for ALL those worldly climate changes. Are we betting against the Sun? Today, President Biden has called climate change “the number one issue facing humanity”, implying that humanity is more powerful than Mother Nature and the Sun that caused the previous ice ages and warming cycles.

So, what if the earth is warming again? Two questions for the infamous “modelers”:

  1. How many fatalities are projected of the 8 billion in a warmer climate with continued use of fossil fuels?
  2. How many fatalities are projected of the 8 billion without the fossil fuels that were the reason the world populated from 1 to 8 billion in a period of about 200 years?

Why ar we even listening to a man with late stages of dementia?  He needs assisted living, not making decisions that harm us.

Harm from war on hydrocarbons exceeds harm from climate change

By Ronald Stein, CFACT, 10/7/21 

We are being told of the world’s forthcoming demise with continued use of fossil fuels, and the need to commit to a reduction in emissions to keeping temperature rise below 1.5C, but we have nothing to compare potential fatalities with or without fossil fuels.

History tells us that four of the last five warming cycles occurred before humans and their kin were even around, suggesting the causes have got to be attributable to the Sun and Mother Nature.

Human beings were not present during any of those previous ice ages and warming cycles, but the SUN was here for ALL those worldly climate changes. Are we betting against the Sun? Today, President Biden has called climate change “the number one issue facing humanity”, implying that humanity is more powerful than Mother Nature and the Sun that caused the previous ice ages and warming cycles.

So, what if the earth is warming again? Two questions for the infamous “modelers”:

  1. How many fatalities are projected of the 8 billion in a warmer climate with continued use of fossil fuels?
  2. How many fatalities are projected of the 8 billion without the fossil fuels that were the reason the world populated from 1 to 8 billion in a period of about 200 years?

If we were to follow the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) led efforts to cease oil production, cease fracking, and stop importing crude oil, the supply chain to refineries will be terminated and that manufacturing industry will become history, i.e., no more fuels for transportation infrastructures, and no manufactured derivatives from crude oil to make the thousands of products demanded by worldwide economies and lifestyles.

Interestingly, after the discovery of oil just more than a hundred years ago, we created various modes of transportation, a medical industry, and electronics and communications systems. The oil that reduced infant mortality, extended longevity to more than 80+ and allowed the world to populate to from 1 to 8 billion in about 200 short years, is now required to provide the food, medical, and communications to maintain and grow that population.

A key question for all those attending the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Conference in Glasgow, Scotland in November:

  • How dare pro-humanity individuals and governments support banishment of fossil fuels, when their banishment would be the greatest threat to civilization resulting in billions dying from starvation, diseases, and weather-related deaths?

With fossil fuels:

  • The prosperity in the wealthier and healthier countries of using fossil fuels has reduced infant mortality, extended longevity from 40+ to more than 80+, allowed us to move to anywhere in the world via planes, trains, ships, and vehicles.
  • We know that wealthier developed countries have access to heating, air conditioning, and insulation that has virtually eliminated weather related deaths. In the last 80 years, climate-related deaths have gone down by a rate of 98%. Globally, the individual risk of dying from weather-related disasters declined by 98 percent from a high of almost 500,000 deaths in 1920 from floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, and extreme temperatures.
  • We created various modes of transportation, a medical industry, and electronics and communications systems. The oil that reduced infant mortality, extended longevity to more than 80+ and allowed the world to populate to 8 billion, within the last 200 years is now required to provide the food, medical, and communications to maintain and grow that population.
  • The more than 6,000 products that are made from derivatives manufactured from oil, including asphalt roofing, asphalt roads, fertilizers, and all the products in hospitals that come from the derivatives manufactured from crude oil are more important than the various fuels to the world to operate planes, trucks, militaries, construction equipment, merchant ships, cruise ships, and automobiles. Those products have been successful in “limiting” annual fatalities to the following:
  • More than 25,000,000 abortions performed each year

Without fossil fuels, poorer countries are already experiencing 11 million children dying every year. Those infant fatalities are from the preventable causes of diarrhea, malaria, neonatal infection, pneumonia, preterm delivery, or lack of oxygen at birth as many developing countries have no, or minimal, access to those products from oil derivatives enjoyed by the wealthy and healthy countries.

Humanity has been adaptive to climate changes, especially with all the products from fossil fuels and the various infrastructures that they support. If we abolish fossil fuels, just to reduce emissions, what do the computer models project in annual fatalities without the medical industry infrastructure, transportation infrastructures, communication infrastructures, and heating, air conditioning, and insulation that has virtually eliminated weather related deaths, that those fossil fuel products support?

The computer models need to share with the world, the projected annual fatalities to the 8 billion on earth, once we have eliminated the supply chain of products demanded by the medical industry, transportation infrastructure, and communication infrastructures. Basically, can humanity survive in a warmer climate without fossil fuels, and what is the projected lifespan without the products from fossil fuels?

It would be great to eliminate fossil fuels and reduce the associated emissions, BUT where’s the safety net, before we jump off that cliff, to keep economies and lifestyles from the drastic changes that would be required without the products from those fossil fuels?

Without a safety net to replace all the products and fuels manufactured from crude oil, as discussed with TV talk show host Rick Amato, efforts to cease the use of oil could be the greatest threat to civilization, as “clean electricity” from intermittent breezes and sunshine cannot manufacture anything, as they just generate electricity.

Stein: EV buyers beware – fires, scarce charging times, and parking restrictions

When you buy an electric vehicle you will pay a high price to go short distances—and if you run out of battery juice on the 5 Freeway north of Madera or between San Clemente and Oceanside, you might have to get your car towed dozens of miles to get it recharged.

“In the wake of a series of severe EV battery fires, one of the largest vehicle manufacturers in the world, General Motors has just issued safety recommendations for Bolt EV’s:

  • Not to park your Chevy Bolt within 50 feet of other vehicles in case it catches fire.
  • Highly recommends that Bolt EV owners not to park within 50 feet of anything you care about.
  • Recommends parking on the top floor or on an open-air deck and park 50 feet or more away from another vehicle.
  • Requests Bolt EV owners to not leave their vehicle charging unattended, even if they are using a charging station in a parking deck.

General Motors previously told Bolt owners

  • to only charge the battery to 90 percent,
  • charge more frequently,
  • and avoid depleting the battery below about 70 miles of remaining range.
  • And that they should also park the vehicle outside.

Really, to be safe the best you can do is drive from your house to Nordstrom’s and back, kind of safely.

EV buyers beware – fires, scarce charging times, and parking restrictions

By Ronald Stein, CFACT, 9/30/21 

In the wake of a series of severe EV battery fires, one of the largest vehicle manufacturers in the world, General Motors has just issued safety recommendations for Bolt EV’s:

  • Not to park your Chevy Bolt within 50 feet of other vehicles in case it catches fire.
  • Highly recommends that Bolt EV owners not to park within 50 feet of anything you care about.
  • Recommends parking on the top floor or on an open-air deck and park 50 feet or more away from another vehicle.
  • Requests Bolt EV owners to not leave their vehicle charging unattended, even if they are using a charging station in a parking deck.

General Motors previously told Bolt owners

  • to only charge the battery to 90 percent,
  • charge more frequently,
  • and avoid depleting the battery below about 70 miles of remaining range.
  • And that they should also park the vehicle outside.

The recent General Motors safety announcement comes after they recalled all 143,000 of the Bolts for fire risk to replace new battery modules. A major expense to GM as that EV recall could, as Morningstar analyst David Whiston told the Detroit Free Press, cost GM some $1.8 billion.

With product liability attorneys staging on the sidelines, will other EV manufacturers start issuing similar safety recommendations to their potential EV buyers?

Internationally, electrical grid stability has become a concern, as the supply chain of generation of continuous uninterruptable electricity from coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants are being shuttered in favor of intermittent electricity generation from breezes and sunshine.

The UK has concerns about their electrical grid being able to handle intermittent, spiked electricity that comes from breezes and sunshine; or if the grid can handle tens of millions of electric vehicles charging at the same time. Under current technological, and future scenarios, that type of grid has not even come close to being invented yet. Britain will also need more electricity to make their entire transportation sector electrical. A new electrical grid will need to be built.

Under UK regulations, restricted charging times will come into force in May 2022, as new chargers in the home and workplace are to automatically switch off in peak times to avoid potential blackouts. New chargers will be pre-set to not function from 8am to 11am, and 4pm to 10pm.

In the UK, where there are currently only 300,000 battery electric vehicles (EVs) on the UK’s roads. Electric car charging points in people’s homes will be preset to switch off for nine hours each weekday at times of peak demand because ministers fear blackouts on the National Grid.

Lithium fires are horribly difficult to extinguish, and emit dangerously toxic fumes which can cause long term or even permanent dementia like brain injuries, along with a host of other usually reversible harms. Since lithium-ion fires are a chemical reaction they can only be cooled not extinguished. They end up burning for several days in some cases. To extinguish Lithium automobile battery fires, firefighters cordon off the area and spray a fine mist of water on the fire to try to keep the temperature down, then wait for it to burn itself out. Firefighters may need 30,000 to 40,000 gallons of water to contain a Tesla electric vehicle (EV) blaze than the 500 to 1,000 gallons of water they would normally use for a mainstream gas-powered car that was on fire.

A truly nightmare scenario is one in which an EV fire occurs in an underground parking garage beneath an apartment complex or a crowded office building. With the toxic fumes generated, how would the local fire department be able to respond to a fire that could not be extinguished even if they could get to it? Germany may be stepping up to the plate with a trend of banning EV’s from parking underground due to potential EV battery fires

EV’s may be a gift for insurance scammers – just target an EV in the building, and nobody will question the insurance claim when the building burns down. On a serious note, with insufficient street parking available for business buildings and apartment dwellers, a risk of this magnitude is going to start having a real impact, on whether EVs are allowed into parking structures or on ferries, unless the problem is rectified fast.

If parking underground is limited at high rise office buildings and apartment complexes, there may be insufficient street parking available. Street parking will result in a vast amount of extension cords laying on the ground to charge the EV’s, which may be an attractive theft item for those in poverty to redeem the value of the copper.

The many items for potential EV buyers to be aware of such as potential fires, reductions in available changing times, and parking restrictions, may not bode well for the optimistic EV sales projections.

Stein: Eliminating crude oil is like jumping out of a plane without a chute

Imagine no oil in California.  That also means no cars, no plastics and over 6,000 products that will have to be imported into California or we do without.  Of course this will also raise prices of goods and services.

“The more than 6,000 products including asphalt roofing, asphalt roads, fertilizers, and all the products in hospitals that come from the derivatives manufactured from crude oil are more important than the various fuels to the world to operate planes, trucks, militaries, construction equipment, merchant ships, cruise ships, and automobiles.

Electricity alone can recharge your iPhones and EV batteries, but wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture the derivatives that are needed to make the parts of those iPhones and Tesla’s and the components in solar panels, wind turbines, and automobiles.

Are those making these decisions ignorant or do they want to tank our economy?

Eliminating crude oil is like jumping out of a plane without a chute

By Ronald Stein, CFACT,  9/22/21  

The world, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are proposing banishment of fossil fuels and are focused on reducing emissions from fossil fuels at any costs, but a safety net of having a viable replacement should be in place before we jump off that cliff.

Banning oil imports, fracking, and ceasing oil production to focus on the symbolic renewable energy as the fossil fuels replacement is fooling ourselves as that “clean energy” is only electricity generated from breezes and sunshine.

Before the healthy and wealthy countries abandon all crude oil fracking and exploration that will eliminate the supply chain to refineries and put an end to that manufacturing sector, we should have a safety net to live without the crude oil fuels and derivatives that are manufactured from that energy source. Without any clones to access everything we get from crude oil; the termination of its use could be the greatest threat to civilization.

The more than 6,000 products including asphalt roofing, asphalt roads, fertilizers, and all the products in hospitals that come from the derivatives manufactured from crude oil are more important than the various fuels to the world to operate planes, trucks, militaries, construction equipment, merchant ships, cruise ships, and automobiles.

Electricity alone can recharge your iPhones and EV batteries, but wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture the derivatives that are needed to make the parts of those iPhones and Tesla’s and the components in solar panels, wind turbines, and automobiles.

Reliance on intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine is unfathomable as electricity by itself is unable to support the prolific growth rates of the military, airlines, cruise ships, supertankers, container shipping, trucking infrastructures, and the medical industry that is already about 90 percent dependent for the products from petroleum, to meet the demands of the exploding world population.

Only healthy and wealthy countries like the USA, Germany, Australia, and the UK can subsidize electricity generation from breezes and sunshine, and then, its only intermittent electricity at best. The 80 percent of the 8 billion on earth living on less than $10 a day cannot subsidize themselves out of a paper bag.

Those poorer countries must rely on affordable and abundant coal for reliable electricity, while residents in the healthy and wealthier countries pay dearly for those subsidies with some of the highest costs for electricity in the world.

Before the healthier and wealthier countries ceases all oil production, they need to focus on an answer to what safety parachute exists to replace what we get from crude oil.

  • Before the 1900’s we had NONE of the 6,000 products from oil and petroleum products By ceasing oil production and fracking, the supply chain to refineries will be severed and there will no need for those manufacturing refineries.
  • Without refineries we would be terminating the manufacturing of the derivatives that make the thousands of products used in our daily lives and terminating the manufacturing of the various fuels for transportation infrastructures and the military.
  • Without crude oil, the world would be in desperate need for “clones” to those oil derivatives that provide the thousands of products from petroleum that are essential to our medical industry, electronics, communications, transportation infrastructure, our electricity generation, our cooling, heating, manufacturing, and agriculture—indeed, virtually every aspect of our daily lives and lifestyles.
  • The world has had more than 100 years to develop clones or generics to replace the crude oil derivatives. Without replacements for those derivatives manufactured from crude oil, there will be gigantic reductions in living standards of the population in the so-called industrial countries, and any attempt to develop the colonial countries would come to a dead stop.
  • The “green” preachers have yet to promote the need for clones to the oil derivatives that are the basis of billionaire’s lifestyles and worldwide economies.
  • Wind turbines and solar panels are not only incapable of manufacturing any such derivatives, but the manufacturing of the components for wind and solar are themselves 100 percent dependent on the derivatives made from crude oil, the same crude oil that the world wants to eliminate from our economies.

Energy is more than electricity from breezes and sunshine. Electricity by itself cannot provide the thousands of products from petroleum that are essential to our medical industry, transportation infrastructure, our electricity generation, our cooling, heating, manufacturing, and agriculture—indeed, virtually every aspect of our daily lives and lifestyles. Nor can electricity alone, support the military, airlines, cruise ships, supertankers, container shipping, and trucking infrastructures.

The greatest threat to civilization would be from the elimination of crude oil as that commodity is manufactured into the oil derivatives and transportation fuels that can bring the poor out of poverty and are the reasons, we have healthy and wealthy developed countries. Going cold turkey to electricity from breezes and sunshine is not the wisest move without a safety net to rely upon that can support worldwide lifestyles and economies as we now know it.

Stein: California voters give Newsom approval to continue regressive policies against the working class

On the issue of energy, the people of California on Tuesday spoke—they decided to destroy what is left of the stability of the energy supply.

“The working class have spoken, with their votes, that they support Governor Newsom’s bloated, sleepy, and sloppy bureaucracy that caters to the upper class:

  • Those that can afford electricity and fuels at any cost,
  • Those that tolerate the growing homeless population as they don’t live near those encampments,
  • Those that can afford exorbitant housing costs, and
  • Those that use subsidies to acquire their EV’s that they only drive about 5,000 miles per year.”

We will continue to have brownouts and blackouts, highest gas and energy costs—we are pricing families out of California.

California voters give Newsom approval to continue regressive policies against the working class

With electricity and fuel costs among the highest in the country, Newsom is doing everything possible to increase energy costs and transfer emissions to developing countries.

By Ronald Stein, Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure, Irvine, California, 9/16/21   

The working class have spoken, with their votes, that they support Governor Newsom’s bloated, sleepy, and sloppy bureaucracy that caters to the upper class:

  • Those that can afford electricity and fuels at any cost,
  • Those that tolerate the growing homeless population as they don’t live near those encampments,
  • Those that can afford exorbitant housing costs, and
  • Those that use subsidies to acquire their EV’s that they only drive about 5,000 miles per year.

The working class are not yet enduring enough financial pain from Newsom’s regressive policies toward the  Hispanic and African American  that are 45 percent of the 40 million Californians population.

The one-party state of California successfully played their aces with advertisement support from President Biden, Vice President Harris, Former President Obama, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and AOC as the Democratic party could not afford to ““lose”” the largest state in America.

All ads were focused only on 2 fears: the fear of a Republican taking over a Democratic state, and the fear of unmasking during COVID. Newsom totally avoided conversations about renewable electricity costs from breezes and sunshine that are crushing the working poor.

With President Biden and Governor Newsom believing “WE” can stop climate change from getting worse, a 3rd grader can easily calculate that California’s population of 40 million is only 0.5 percent of the 8 billion on this planet. Even a 3rd grader can see that 8,000,000,000 is larger than 40,000,000. Reducing emissions in the “smaller” countries at exorbitant costs that only the wealthy can afford, will have negligible impact on world emission totals.

At least 80 percent of humanity, or more than 6 billion in this world are living on less  than $10 a day, and they cannot subsidize themselves out of a paper bag.

Global emissions will be exploding in the coming years and decades ahead over the population and economic growth of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, and Vietnam that plan to build more than 600 coal power units and African countries that are planning to build more than 1,250 new coal and gas-fired power plants by 2030.

Those poorer and larger populated developing countries must rely on affordable and abundant coal for reliable electricity, while residents in the healthy and wealthier countries pay dearly for those subsidies with some of the highest cost for electricity in the world. These poor folks need abundant, affordable, reliable, scalable, and flexible electricity while the healthier and wealthier are pursuing the most expensive ways to generate “secondary” intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine.

California continues to “leak” emissions and air quality responsibilities to developing countries halfway around the world.  The same countries that have virtually non-existent environmental regulation nor labor controls to protect the local workers in those developing countries.  Newsom has obviously yet to read the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations” that helps citizens attain a better understanding that just for the opportunity to generate intermittent electricity that is dependent on breezes and sunshine, the wealthier and healthier countries like Germany, Australia, Britain, and America continue to exploit the most vulnerable people and environments of the world today.

Newsom has totally abandoned the opportunity to follow the lead of the United Nations and Amnesty International as the efforts to achieve net zero emissions must not be built on human rights abuses or on non-existent environmental regulations in foreign countries.

California voters have expressed their support for Newsom’s emission reduction efforts of “leaking” environmental degradation and humanity atrocities to foreign countries that are supplying the exotic minerals and metals to support green electricity.

As a result of the Governor’s continuous efforts to decrease in-state oil production, the crude oil imported from countries halfway around the world, representing 58 percent of the states’ needs, costs California more than $60 million dollars a day, yes, every day, being paid to oil-rich foreign countries.

California voters are supportive of Newsom’s’ order to end fracking in California by 2024 that will increase worldwide emissions and require California to increase its monthly imports resulting in expenditures increasing from the current $60 million dollars a day to a whopping $90 million EVERY DAY for foreign countries to support the fifth largest economy in the world.

Before Newsom ceases all oil production in California, he needs to focus on an answer to what will replace crude oil.

  • Before the 1900’s we had NONE of the 6,000 products from oil and petroleum products.  By ceasing oil production and fracking, the supply chain to refineries will be severed and there will no need for refineries as they will have no crude oil to manufacture fuels and derivatives.
  • Manufacturing without crude oil would be terminated for the various fuels for transportation infrastructures and the military, and manufacturing the derivatives that make the thousands of products used in our daily lives would be terminated.
  • Without crude oil, how will the world “clone” those oil derivatives that provide the thousands of products from petroleum that are essential to our medical industry, electronics, communications, transportation infrastructure, our electricity generation, our cooling, heating, manufacturing, and agriculture—indeed, virtually every aspect of our daily lives and lifestyles?
  • Without replacements for those derivatives manufactured from crude oil, there will be gigantic reductions in living standards of the population in the so-called industrial countries, and any attempt to develop the colonial countries would come to a dead stop.

By not recalling the Governor, voters are proud of California being the only state in America that imports more electricity than any other state, now at 32 percent, and by having no plans for new in-state electrical generation to replace the capacity lost from three recent and  five forthcoming shuttering of power plants, it will need to increase its imports of high-priced electricity from the Northwest and Southwest to fill the void  and let residents and businesses pay the premium.

Gavin Newsom is a mere symptom of what ails California. The danger to California is not Gavin Newsom, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Governorship. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

Here’s hoping the middle class can financially survive the policies that Newsom, the leader they selected at the ballot box. Hopefully, we can restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their Governor.

Stein: EV Battery Fires do not bode well for projected sales

Another “hit” on those potential EV sales projections is the German trend of banning EV’s from parking underground due to potential EV battery fires.  

In 2020, a California couple awoke to a blaring car alarm and a burning house. The blaze had started in one of the two Tesla S vehicles in their garage and spread to the other. 

 The culprit in nearly all EV fire cases is the lithium-ion batteries that power them, and which burn with extraordinary ferocity. Adding to the fire and heat danger posed by these events is the extreme toxicity of the fumes generated. According to one study, these fumes may in some circumstances be a larger threat, especially in confined environments where people are present.

 Since lithium-ion fires are a chemical reaction they can only be cooled not extinguished. They end up burning for several days in some cases. In Germany, damage to a parking structure was extensive. So, for this German parking structure, it has chosen to ban all electrified vehicles from parking underground. That includes hybrids, PHEV, and EVs, whether they contain lithium-ion or nickel-metal hydride batteries. 

Think about it—park your car in an underground parking lot and the vehicle could explode.  The Germans are banning it—when will American communities?

 

 

 

EV Battery Fires do not bode well for projected sales

Germany may be setting a trend by not allowing EV’s to park underground

By Ronald Stein, , 9/2/21   Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure, Irvine, California     

 

Recent news about EV battery fires does not bode well for California Governor Newsom’s executive order to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035

The Bolt, the only EV that GM is selling in North America, has been “tied to at least nine fires” since early 2020, and Hyundai’s vehicles were involved in about 15 fires. Meanwhile, three Tesla’s have burst into flames over the past four months. So far, 27 EV battery fires and still counting.

Firefighters may need 30,000 to 40,000 gallons of water to contain a Tesla electric vehicle (EV) blaze than they would normally use for a mainstream gas-powered car that was on fire.

General Motors announced in August 2021 that they were recalling 73,000 Chevrolet Bolt EV’s in addition to the 70,000 Bolts that were made between 2017 and 2019.  Fixing all 143,000 of the Bolts being recalled for fire risk to replace new battery modules could, as Morningstar analyst David Whiston told the Detroit Free Press, cost GM some $1.8 billion.

Another “hit” on those potential EV sales projections is the German trend of banning EV’s from parking underground due to potential EV battery fires.

In 2020, a California couple awoke to a blaring car alarm and a burning house. The blaze had started in one of the two Tesla S vehicles in their garage and spread to the other. 

The culprit in nearly all EV fire cases is the lithium-ion batteries that power them, and which burn with extraordinary ferocity. Adding to the fire and heat danger posed by these events is the extreme toxic fluoride gas emissions generated. According to one study, these fumes may in some circumstances be a larger threat, especially in confined environments where people are present.

Since lithium-ion fires are a chemical reaction they can only be cooled not extinguished. They end up burning for several days in some cases. In Germany, damage to a parking structure was extensive. So, for this German parking structure, it has chosen to ban all electrified vehicles from parking underground. That includes hybrids, PHEV, and EVs, whether they contain lithium-ion or nickel-metal hydride batteries. 

Most of the California EV’s are currently owned by folks with higher incomes than that of the working poor. Those wealthier owners have greater access to personal garages in their homes to charge their EV’s, or access to charging stations in new apartments that have underground parking. Caution to the wind is that parking in confined areas of garages and underground parking may not be the best place to park EV’s.

 

While many in California are experiencing the rapid growth of “energy poverty” that makes California’s economic recovery from the pandemic even more challenging, the state has 18 million (45 percent of the 40 million Californians) that represent the Hispanic and African American  populations of the state. 

The working poor need workhorse vehicles. For the current owners of EV’s, the limited EV usage in the state is slightly more than 5,000 miles a year which is a reflection that the EV is a second vehicle, for those that can afford them, and not the family workhorse vehicle.

As Pew Research reported in June, “In each of the past three years, EVs accounted for about 2% of the U.S. new-car market.” The reasons why EVs aren’t grabbing consumers by the tailpipe are many, but the main ones are affordability and functionality. 

EVs are still a luxury product that attract the Benz and Beemer crowd, not low- and middle-income consumers. The average household income for EV buyers is about $140,000. That’s roughly nearly twice the US median, which is about $63,000. 

From that limited elite ownership group, there is a growing percentage of those California EV users that are switching back to gasoline cars, which is sending a message that may further deflate EV growth projections.

Germany was the first country to go “green”, and now they, not California, are setting the trend of not allowing EV’s to park in confined spaces.

Stein: PCC proposed banishment of fossil fuels would place most of the world’s population at risk

If Joe Biden, Greta, Newsom and the Luddites have their way, these industries will be affected—some closed down.  Hundreds of thousands of jobs—maybe millions, lost.  Literally the economy of the world will go into Depression.

“Getting off fossil fuels would negatively impact the following industries and infrastructures that have supported the existence of the IPCC:

  • The almost 20,000 Private jets for the elites of our world.
  • The almost 10,000 superyachts over 24 meters in length, again for the elites of our world.
  • Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin sub-orbital spaceflight services company, for the very wealthy want-to-be astronauts.
  • Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic sub-orbital spaceflight services company, for the very wealthy want-to-be astronauts.
  • Commercial aviation, with 23,000 commercial airplanes worldwide that have been accommodating 4 billion passenger annually.
  • The 56,000 merchant ships burning more than 120 million gallons a day of high sulfur bunker fuel moving products worldwide worth billions of dollars daily.
  • The military equipment from each country consisting of aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers, submarines, planes, tanks and armor, trucks, and troop carriers
  • The more than  300 cruise liners, each of which consumes 80,000 gallons of fuels daily, that have been accommodating more than 25 million passengers annually worldwide

The goal of those trying to kill off fossil fule is simple—impoverish the world, make everyone equally poor.  Return us to the days of camp fires for heat and cooking.  Once again, we will be a globe of serfs and Lords—mostly serfs.

IPCC proposed banishment of fossil fuels would place most of the world’s population at risk

The oil derivatives and fuel manufactured from oil were the main reasons the world populated to 8 billion.

By Ronald Stein, Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure, Irvine, California, CFACT, 8/18/21   

The AR6 Climate Change 2021Report just released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an intergovernmental body of the United Nations, has called out a “code red for humanity“ that “must sound a death knell for…fossil fuels, before they destroy our planet.”

The report from the IPCC has failed to acknowledge that the introduction of oil just over 100 years ago has been overwhelmingly beneficial for the prosperity of the world’s population growth to 8 billion  from about 1 billion that is shown clearly in their own United Nations graph. The IPCC goal to banish fossil fuels will place most of the world’s population at risk, like the medieval times.

The members of the IPCC seem oblivious to the facts of how life was without the fossil fuels industry just 120 years ago when we had NO medications and medical equipment, NO vaccines, the same vaccines that need refrigeration, and refrigeration needs electricity, especially in the hospital sector where redundant generation capacity is a mandate. NO water filtration systems, NO sanitation systems. NO fertilizers to help feed billions, NO pesticides to control locusts and other pests. NO communications systems, including cell phones, computers, and I Pads, NO vehicles, NO airlines that now move 4 billion people around the world, NO cruise ships that now move 25 million passengers around the world, NO merchant ships that are now moving billions of dollars of products monthly throughout the world, NO tires for vehicles, and NO asphalt for roads, NO militaries, and NO space program.

All the above infrastructures are made with products made from oil derivatives. Before the 1900’s we had NONE of the 6,000 products from oil and petroleum products.  By ceasing oil production and fracking, the supply chain to refineries will be severed and production of various fuels for transportation, and the derivatives to make products would be terminated.

The IPCC is a religious and political organization that is systematically driven to catastrophize fossil fuels’ climate impacts and ignore fossil fuels’ benefits. The IPCC’s predictions and prescriptions are unconscionable in that they are reflecting support for the 11 million children dying every year  being experienced in poorer countries. Those infant fatalities are from the preventable causes of diarrhea, malaria, neonatal infection, pneumonia, preterm delivery, or lack of oxygen at birth as many developing countries have no, or minimal, access to those products from oil derivatives enjoyed by the wealthy and healthy countries.

The latest report by the IPCC totally ignores the massive benefits, and by almost exclusively focusing on negative side-effects, the IPCC report totally denies the fact that fossil fuels are making the world better and better than life was before 1900, including human’s beings safer than ever from climate. The rate of climate-related disaster deaths—deaths from extreme temperatures, droughts, wildfires, storms, and floods—has decreased by 98 percent over the last century.

Cold is a far greater danger to humans than heat–and thus, we should expect warming to save more cold-related deaths than it causes heat-related deaths. People continue to move to the Palm Springs Desert, Las Vegas, and Phoenix, but nobody is moving to Siberia.

After oil, we created various modes of transportation, a medical industry, and electronics and communications systems. Oil reduced infant mortality, extended longevity from 40+ to more than 80+, and gave the public the ability to move anywhere in the world via planes, trains, ships, and vehicles, and virtually eliminated deaths from most diseases and from all forms of weather, The IPCC message to abolish oil would reverse all of that “progress”.

There are now nearly eight billion of us, with most people living much longer and more prosperous lives than the one billion people who were around when coal use took off two centuries ago. Moreover, the richer we are, the greener most parts of the planet become. Indeed, plastics and fossil fuels benefit both humanity and our environment. We are born and live surrounded by plastics and countless machines created with and powered by fossil fuels.

The IPCC is comprised of educated men and women that must surely comprehend that electricity alone, especially intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine, has not, and will not, run the economies of the world, as electricity alone is unable to support the prolific growth rates of the medical industry, military, airlines, cruise ships, supertankers, container shipping, and trucking infrastructures to meet the demands of the exploding world population.  Getting off fossil fuels would negatively impact the following industries and infrastructures that have supported the existence of the IPCC:

  • The almost 20,000 Private jets for the elites of our world.
  • The almost 10,000 superyachts over 24 meters in length, again for the elites of our world.
  • Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin sub-orbital spaceflight services company, for the very wealthy want-to-be astronauts.
  • Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic sub-orbital spaceflight services company, for the very wealthy want-to-be astronauts.
  • Commercial aviation, with 23,000 commercial airplanes worldwide that have been accommodating 4 billion passenger annually.
  • The 56,000 merchant ships burning more than 120 million gallons a day of high sulfur bunker fuel moving products worldwide worth billions of dollars daily.
  • The military equipment from each country consisting of aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers, submarines, planes, tanks and armor, trucks, and troop carriers
  • The more than  300 cruise liners, each of which consumes 80,000 gallons of fuels daily, that have been accommodating more than 25 million passengers annually worldwide

The IPCC fails to recognize that at least 80 percent of humanity, or more than 6 billion in this world are living on less  than $10 a day, and billions living with little to no access to electricity,  These poor folks need abundant, affordable, reliable, scalable, and flexible electricity while The healthier and wealthier are pursuing the most expensive ways to generate “secondary” intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine.

The future adaptation to climate changes may be challenging as the world may have difficulty supporting 8 billion inhabitants without the thousands of products manufactured from oil derivatives. Oil has provided the healthy and wealthy countries with a quality of life that the poorer and less healthy developing countries desire but ridding the world of fossil fuels will drive humanity back to medieval times and place most of the world’s population at risk.

Stein: The working poor need workhorse vehicles

Trend setting California’s EV message to America – they’re not for working families!

The executive orders from California Governor Newsom and President Biden desire to have the masses change their lifestyles to live with EV’s, but the messages from the elite California users have been demonstrating that they are being used intermittently and are not the workhorse transportation vehicles for middle class families.

If the radicals running government had their way you would pay $60,000 or more for a car that had a range of 200 miles.  Enough to get around town, enough to force you to stay in the area—no more road trips, visiting clients in other parts of the State or relatives in other States.  It will end the RV industry.  Oh, and even a little recharging take an hour or more.  This is how you control the citizens—only the rich would be able to travel.  Oh, sounds like a totalitarian State, you can read about it in the classic “Animal Farm”..all animals are equal, some are more equal than others.

The working poor need workhorse vehicles

Trend setting California’s EV message to America – they’re not for working families!

By Ronald Stein, CFACT,  8/12/21 


With more than forty percent of the EV’s in the entire country being in California at the end of 2020, the EV popularity in California has gotten President Biden so excited to want the rest of the country to follow California’s lead that Biden issued a new executive order that pushes for half of all new cars sold in America by 2030 to be electric vehicles.

California EV user’s experiences do not bode well for projected EV sales in America as the states’ EV users may be sending a caution to the wind (no pun intended) message to America that the EV usage in the state is slightly more than 5,000 miles a year.

A few reasons why Californians may be sending the wrong message to America are that:

  1. The limited usage of the EV’s is a reflection that the EV is a second vehicle, for those that can afford them, and not the family workhorse vehicle.
  2. The primary owners of EV’s are the highly educated and financially well off.
  3. Their incomes rank among the highest in the country which may be a reflection of home owners that have easier access to charging their EV from their multi-car garages, or for those folks living in new apartments that may have access to more convenient EV charging capabilities.
  4. From that limited elite ownership group, there is a growing percentage of those California EV users that are switching back to gasoline cars, which is sending a message that may further deflate EV growth projections.

The trend for working families is not for the smaller lightweight transportation vehicle, but for the larger and heavier SUVs that are currently half of the new car sales. And for vehicles that are used well in excess of just 5,000 miles per year.

Governor Newsom announced on September 23, 2020 an executive order to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035

 

  • The governor cannot make that EV declaration on his own, but he can direct his agencies do to it, which they will under their current clean air act waiver, and other laws they believe grant them this authority.  The executive order directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to implement rulemaking to ban the sale of the vehicles.

·         To complicate the Governor’s desire for lifestyle changes for Californians. CARB has no authority over vehicle registration. You will still be able to purchase a used internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle, or one brought in from out of state and register it in California.

·         CARB also has no authority to set registration fees to make ICE vehicles more expensive.

The working poor, who often must commute an hour or more inland because coastal housing is so expensive need larger vehicles for their families, do not fall into the current EV elite ownership family. The median income for Latino households in 2016 was $56,200, $55,200 for African American households, and $96,400 for white households. According to several studies, as many as 40 percent of all Californians cannot regularly meet basic monthly expenses.

While many in California are experiencing the rapid growth of “energy poverty” that makes California’s economic recovery from the pandemic even more challenging, the state has 18 million (45 percent of the 40 million Californians) that represent the Hispanic and African American  populations of the state

In a state with the highest costs for electricity and fuels, he continues to do everything possible to further INCREASE the costs for electricity and fuels for its 40 million residents. Those huge regressive costs have not boded well for the bottom half making less than $20 an hour.

The report from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) shows that California’s electricity policies have contributed to household users paying 50 percent more, and industrial users paying more than 100 percent more than the national average for electricityOnly Hawaii has higher rates. What is being done to reverse the cost of electricity?

Since drivers of electric vehicles do not purchase gasoline, they do not pay federal gasoline taxes which go into the Highway Trust Fund that pays for federal road maintenance. Again, another burden for the average working family to finance the roads for the elite owners of EVs.

California has almost 400,000 miles of roadways that are heavily dependent on road taxes from fuels that contribute more than $7 billion annually, the same tax base that also funds the environmental programs that will be diminishing in the decades ahead.

The wealthier EV owners may be able to afford the “tax equalizer”, the “VMT” that is coming, but not the working families. The Vehicle Mileage Tax (VMT) has been discussed for years, sounds like a logical idea – requiring the users of the highways to pay the fees to maintain those highways. The VMT tax will be needed to replace the $7 billion annually from fuel sales that will be diminishing in the decades ahead.

President Biden loves California’s policies, regulations, and trends and desires to clone them for the rest of America. Since much of the Presidents voter support comes from working families, he may want to pay close attention to the limited usage of EV’s in the trend setting California, from the small group that can afford them.  Working families will still need workhorse vehicles, not a limited lavish second car to show their friends.

Stein: Absentee Democratic voters to decide if Governor Newsom’s growing gap between the rich and poor is worth keeping

Newsom can easily beat back the Recall—if the Democrats wanted to do that.  It appears that registered Democrats are not interested in saving Gavin Newsom, they have no interest or desire to even vote.  That is why unions are spending millions on a get out the vote effort.  That is why the Secretary of State is pushing a vote at home scam, where you can get your ballot on the internet—and no absentee ballot will be sent.  This is why the Democrat Party has geared up to harvesting of ballots.

The November 2020 election in California had almost 70% of the total vote cast by absentee ballot.  I would suspect that number to be even higher this time.

He is directing the state and to the Hispanic and African American  populations that, by 2035, all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero-emission vehicles. The Governor is oblivious to the EV trends being set by current users.

Automobiles are the survival mechanism for low-income people. If you increase the cost of automobiles and the costs of fuel, you hurt low-income people who are already forced to pay almost $1.00 more per gallon of fuel than the rest of the country. Newsom never discusses that regressive expense on the less fortunate.

High energy costs trickle down to everything in our daily lives, from the cost of food, lumber, and services, and ultimately to the high cost of living and housing in California and perpetuates the rise in homelessness and poverty”

The Newsom problem is simple—minorities are smart.  They see the Newsom/Democrat policies are harming them, their families and job creation.  They are the first victims of Newsoms energy and crime policies.  He supports failing schools.  People of color demand quality schools, which neither the Democrat Party or the unions are willing to provide.

Absentee Democratic voters to decide if Governor Newsom’s growing gap between the rich and poor is worth keeping

With half the state already bearing the burden of regressive costs onto the less fortunate, this is a must-read Op Ed for all Californians before voting

By Ronald Stein, 8/18/21  

Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure, Irvine, California

Under the leadership of Governor Gavin Newsom, rich and poor Democrats have been watching the financial gap between them getting wider as his inflicts heavy energy costs onto the less fortunate in California. Starting mid-August, in the Democratic registration-controlled state of California, absentee voters get an opportunity to voice their decision in advance of the September 14th recall election date to cast their ballot for Newsom to support the continuation of his policies biased against the poor or reject him for newer blood to lead the state.

The wealthy Democrats can afford energy at any costs, while the Governor supports exorbitant energy costs that have been contributory to the rapid growth of “energy poverty” and makes California’s economic recovery from the pandemic even more challenging for the 18 million that represent the Hispanic and African American  populations of the state

In a state with the highest costs for electricity and fuels in the nation, Newsom continues to do everything possible to further INCREASE the costs for electricity and fuels for its 40 million residents. Those huge regressive costs have not boded well for the bottom half making less than $20 an hour.

The Governor continues biasing systemic racial, health, economic, and environmental injustices that persist against the economic survivability of those that can least afford expensive electricity and fuels, those with low income and those retirees on fixed incomes.  Poverty, not global warming, remains the biggest challengefor California.

Costs for electricity, especially for intermittent electricity generation from breezes and sunshine, have been skyrocketing, inflicting more energy costs onto the less fortunate as an unwanted regressive expense.  The median income for Latino households in 2016 was $56,200, $55,200 for African American households, and $96,400 for white households. According to several studies, as many as 40 percent of all Californians cannot regularly meet basic monthly expenses.

The report from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) shows that California’s electricity policies have contributed to household users paying 50 percent more, and industrial users paying more than 100 percent more than the national average for electricityOnly Hawaii has higher rates. What is being done to reverse the cost of electricity?

Governor Newsom apparently did not read the required reading for the next EV owner: Drawbacks of EV’s, before he announced on September 23, 2020 an executive order to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035

 

The governor cannot make that EV declaration on his own, but he can direct his agencies do to it, which they will under their current clean air act waiver, and other laws they believe grant them this authority.  The executive order directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to implement rulemaking to ban the sale of the vehicles.

·         To complicate the Governor’s desire for lifestyle changes for Californians, CARB has no authority over vehicle registration. You will still be able to purchase and register a used internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle or one brought in from out of state.

·         CARB also has no authority to set registration fees.

 

He is directing the state and to the Hispanic and African American  populations that, by 2035, all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero-emission vehicles. The Governor is oblivious to the EV trends being set by current users.

Automobiles are the survival mechanism for low-income people. If you increase the cost of automobiles and the costs of fuel, you hurt low-income people who are already forced to pay almost $1.00 more per gallon of fuel than the rest of the country. Newsom never discusses that regressive expense on the less fortunate.

High energy costs trickle down to everything in our daily lives, from the cost of food, lumber, and services, and ultimately to the high cost of living and housing in California and perpetuates the rise in homelessness and poverty.

Under Newsom’s direction (I did not use the word “leadership”) the future “energy costs” looks very bleak for ALL 40 million residents of the state as the economy starts to recover back to near-normal energy demands for the fifth largest economy in the world. The Governor refuses to focus on REDUCING the cost of energy.

The Governor is supportive of creating a national security risk for all of America, as California’s dependency on foreign suppliers for California’s energy needs, as well as the West Coast military operations, has increased imported crude oil from foreign countries from 5 percent in 1992 to 58 percent today of total consumption.

As a result of the Governor’s continuous efforts to decrease in-state oil production, the crude oil imported from countries halfway around the world, representing 58 percent of the states’ needs, costs California more than $60 million dollars a day, yes, every day, being paid to oil-rich foreign countries.

On Earth Day 2021, to gain personal press and another instant gratification act, Newsom ordered an end to fracking in California by 2024, and to work toward phasing out all in-state oil production by 2045, perpetuating continuous cost increases.

Newsom’s’ irresponsible fiscal actions will increase worldwide emissions and require California to increase its monthly imports resulting in expenditures increasing from the current $60 million dollars a day to a whopping $90 million EVERY DAY for foreign countries to support the fifth largest economy in the world. Are the port infrastructures capable of receiving all its energy from foreign countries?

By encouraging oil demands be met from foreign countries halfway around the world, Newsom continues to support greater emissions generated by those foreign countries to meet the states’ energy demands, as they have significantly less stringent environmental regulations than California, if any. Is it ethical to “leak” emission generation to other countries, and dictate that California residents bear the growing costs?

Starting in mid-August, absentee voters can decide in advance of the September 14th Recall Election date, of the hypocritical Governor Newsom and his dysfunctional energy policies that continue to inflict financial harm to most Democrats, and prolificates the growth of poverty and homelessness for those that cannot bear the growing regressive costs upon half the population.  The gap between rich Democrats and the poor is getting wider every day that Newsom remains the Governor. 

Stein: Comparing the world before 1900 to today

Before the healthier and wealthier countries totally jump off the “subsidizing cliff” for electricity from breezes and sunshine, it’s time to look back at the last couple of centuries and see what lifestyle changes they are about to give up, while the developing countries control emissions. 

“Questions pervade like:

  1. Why didn’t the world have electricity before 1900?
  2. Why didn’t the world have, a medical industry, electronics, communications systems, militaries, and transportation infrastructure like planes, trains, automobiles, trucks, and ships before 1900?
  3. Why didn’t we have more than 6,000 products before 1900 that the wealthier and healthier countries now use daily?

One answer is that it could be that electricity is a secondary energy source that we get from the conversion of other sources of energy such as coal, natural gas, and oil. These sources are known as “primary sources, but electricity itself is not a “primary source”. Like electricity, the products used in industries and infrastructures are all dependent on products are manufactured from “primary sources” of energy like petroleum.”

The lifestyle changes we have had in the past 121 years is due to innovation.  Longer and healthier lives, better quality of life. More challenging and interesting lives.  End the use of fossil fuel, coal and nuclear, you end the growth of life, bringing us back to feudal times when the rich controlled our lives.  For instance electric cars are more expensive, due to the batteries, worse for the environment.  We do not have enough electricity now to keep the lights on, a society that has only electric cars is one in which government will have to ration your travel. 

Comparing the world before 1900 to today

27543107 – an amish horse and carriage travels on a rural road in lancaster county, pennsylvania, usa

By Ronald Stein, CFACT,   8/7/21

For thousands of years before 1900, the population of the world hovered around one billion on the entire planet. In the short 200 years since 1900 the world population has “exploded” to the current 8 billion now living on this planet. What caused that quick growth from 1 to 8 billion?

Before 1900 most people never traveled 100-200 miles from where they were born. Life expectancy throughout Europe hovered between 20 and 30 years of age. Food shortages and insecurity were leading concerns in the 18th century, especially in Europe, and these were exacerbated by reduced harvests yields. Disease was another leading cause of death, with rats and fleas being the common carriers of disease, specifically plagues, during this era.

Questions pervade like:

  1. Why didn’t the world have electricity before 1900?
  2. Why didn’t the world have, a medical industry, electronics, communications systems, militaries, and transportation infrastructure like planes, trains, automobiles, trucks, and ships before 1900?
  3. Why didn’t we have more than 6,000 products before 1900 that the wealthier and healthier countries now use daily?

One answer is that it could be that electricity is a secondary energy source that we get from the conversion of other sources of energy such as coal, natural gas, and oil. These sources are known as “primary sources, but electricity itself is not a “primary source”. Like electricity, the products used in industries and infrastructures are all dependent on products are manufactured from “primary sources” of energy like petroleum ‘

The causation of the world’s population exploding to 8 billion may be as simple as the fact that those products that are now used in every modern-day infrastructure and economy CANNOT be made FROM a “secondary” energy source like electricity. Those products need a “primary source” of energy for the manufactured derivatives that are the basis of those products.

Today, we are inundated by the gross fatalities being caused by humanity induced air pollution. These numbers are very important, but pale to the many other causes of fatalities that are impacting the 8 billion on earth.

While the pandemic has accounted for more than 600,000 fatalities just in America, the numbers pale when compared to those poorer countries that are experiencing 11 million children dying every year. Those infant fatalities are from the preventable causes of diarrhea, malaria, neonatal infection, pneumonia, preterm delivery, or lack of oxygen at birth as many developing countries have no, or minimal, access to those products from oil derivatives enjoyed by the wealthy and healthy countries.

When you include fatalities of “other than children” the world numbers get even worse…

After that slice of morbidity, I’d like to present a tad of relatively good news that may be of interest to supporters of zero-emission electricity, and that is the worlds usage of nuclear. Probably due to the safety of nuclear power reactors, today there are about 440 nuclear reactors operating in 32 countries around the world with 50 more new ones under construction. Significant further capacity is being created by plant upgrading of existing reactors.

Politicians and the media have been successfully suppressing from public knowledge the worldwide total of nuclear deaths – not annually, but from inception of nuclear – including Three Mile Island (March 1979), Chernobyl (April 1986) and Fukushima (March 2011) are LESS than 200 over 4 decades, versus the more than 50,000,000 annually from previous mentioned causes.

Many of the healthier and wealthier countries are mesmerized with subsidies for electricity from breezes and sunshine. Those countries are also slowing down efforts toward drilling for oil. By reducing the supply of oil, the supply chain to refineries is being reduced to manufacture the oil derivatives and fuels that are the basis of economies. Getting off fossil fuels is going to negatively impact lifestyles and the following industries and infrastructures that are dependent on “primary sources” of energy, after 1900:

  • Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin sub-orbital spaceflight services company, for the very wealthy want-to-be astronauts.
  • Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic sub-orbital spaceflight services company, for the very wealthy want-to-be astronauts.
  • Commercial aviation, with 23,000 commercial airplanes worldwide that have been accommodating 4 billion passenger annually.
  • The 56,000 merchant ships burning more than 120 million gallons a day of high sulfur bunker fuel moving products worldwide worth billions of dollars daily.
  • The military equipment from each country consisting of aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers, submarines, planes, tanks and armor, trucks, and troop carriers
  • The more than 300 cruise liners, each of which consumes 80,000 gallons of fuels daily, that have been accommodating more than 25 million passengers annually worldwide

Today, more than 200 years past 1900, the most important fact about today’s environmental movement, the book “Clean Energy Exploitations” explores how the healthy and wealthy countries of the United States of America, Germany, the UK, and Australia representing 6 percent of the world’s population (505 million vs 7.8 billion) could literally shut down, and cease to exist, and the opposite of what you have been told and believe will take place.

Simply put, in these healthy and wealthy countries, every person, animal, or anything that causes emissions to harmfully rise could vanish off the face of the earth; or even die off, and global emissions will still explode in the coming years and decades ahead over the population and economic growth of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Vietnam that plan to build more than 600 coal power units and African countries that are planning to build more than 1,250 new coal and gas-fired power plants by 2030.

The healthier and wealthier countries fail to recognize that at least 80 percent of humanity, or more than 6 billion in this world are living on less  than $10 a day, and billions living with little to no access to electricity, These poor folks need abundant, affordable, reliable, scalable, and flexible electricity while The healthier and wealthier are pursuing the most expensive ways to generate “secondary” intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine.

The book “Clean Energy Exploitations” helps citizens attain a better understanding that just for the opportunity to generate intermittent electricity that is dependent on favorable weather conditions, the wealthier and healthier countries like Germany, Australia, Britain, and America continue to exploit the most vulnerable people and environments of the world today.