The Migration Crisis

Ross Douthat has a good column titled The Permanent Migration Crisis. The subject of the New York Times article is on what has been dubbed the “migration crisis.” He observes that mass migration is mainly moving from Africa to Western Europe and Latin America to the United States. His intelligent analysis examines the interesting problems this massive wave of migration is creating for both the political Left and Right. I believe his analysis is largely accurate. In zeroing in on the cause of the crisis, Douthat observes:

Civil wars and climate change will play their part, but the most important shifts are, first, the way the internet and smartphones have made it easier to make your way around the world, and second, the population imbalance between a rich, rapidly-aging West and a poorer, younger Global South, a deeply unstable equilibrium drawing economic migrants north.

All of this is a bigger problem for Europe than the United States — European aging is more advanced, Africa’s population will boom for decades (in 50 years there may be five Africans for every European) while Latin America’s birthrates have declined. 

Granted, there is no easy fix in the short to mid term. But does it have to be permanent? No. Note that the migration moves from “poorer” to “rich” regions. The migration is primarily driven by desperation of people escaping intolerable living conditions in their home countries. But do the poor regions have to be poor? What is the reason why the rich nations are rich? Certainly, people in rich countries are no better, smarter, or harder working than those in poor regions. What’s holding back the poor? What’s facilitating the economic growth of the rich? Douthat identifies the problem, but doesn’t address the causes.

I posted this comment, slightly edited for grammatical correctness:

What seems always to be missing from analysis of the migration crisis is recognition of the fact that people are moving from places dominated by authoritarianism and with minimal fossil fuel use to places with substantial Capitalistic freedom powered by extensive fossil fuels use. That's the elephant in the room. Freedom of migration is a good thing. But the migration CRISIS is purely political. Fundamentally, what the countries from which mass migration originates need is more Capitalism—i.e. individual liberty, including property rights and the freedom to use fossil fuels, rule of law, limited democratic governance, etc.—so they can prosper and better protect themselves from domestic violence, tyranny, and the ever-present climate dangers.

Related Reading:

Pope Francis: Prosperity, Liberty, and Climate Change are the Common Enemy

At Climate Summit, America takes Lead on Energy Realism and Prosperity

Capitalist Industrialization, Not Handouts, is “Poor” Countries' Best Protection Against Natural Disasters

CLIMATE VULNERABILITY AND THE INDISPENSABLE VALUE OF INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM—Kieth H. Lockitch 

Religionists Should Promote Capitalism and More Reliable Energy to End Poverty, Not ‘Protect’ the Poor from Fossil Fuels.

The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein

Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less by Alex Epstein

Mexico Feels Pressure of Relentless Migration From South America by James Fredrick for The New York Times 9/21 23

In NJ, Wind Energy Requires ‘Political Commitment’. That’s Precisely the Problem.

In a New Jersey Star-Ledger guest column, Offshore wind is a jobs magnet for New Jersey, and labor is ready to lead, legislator says NJ state assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo enthusiastically promotes a massive offshore wind project. The key point DeAngelo makes is this telling statement, buried near the end of the article:

“Wind power can fuel New Jersey, and what fuels wind power is political commitment.”

So true, and precisely why it shouldn’t be built. “Political commitment” means force; that is, special interests using the machinery of government to force on all of us it’s pet technology, by direct subsidy and/or hampering alternatives—in this case an unreliable, costly energy source that no one would willingly invest in, build, or pay for without ratepayer/taxpayer subsidies and other government favors. No industry should be fueled by government coercion. Wind energy should succeed only by voluntary market acceptance, or fail. 

As to jobs, there is no doubt government-driven wind projects create jobs. But the jobs not created, or destroyed, must also be considered. Money spent on fossil fuel and nuclear power projects also create jobs. I understand DeAngelo is an electrician, and represents the electricians union which would get a jobs bonanza from giant wind farms. But the plumbing/pipefitters union, of which I am a member (ret), goes to bat for pipelines, which are being restricted by political commitment. So he can’t speak for all building trades unions. The same interests who push wind often want to stop fossil fuel projects, costing a lot of plumbing/pipefitting jobs. And the extra money consumers spend on the inflated electricity prices that “fuel” subsidized “renewable” energy spending can not be spent in other areas, reducing growth and thus jobs there. Worse, energy fuels every other industry. Raise the overall price of energy, which history shows happens when renewable energy is forced on us, and you take away growth and jobs across the board. Basic economics teaches you’ll end up with fewer jobs.

I’m not against wind farms. I’m against wind power fueled by political commitment. Government should streamline the permitting process for all energy projects, but otherwise leave all energy producers free to compete on a level legal playing field—that is, a market free of political coercion. Only voluntary consumer choice should determine energy choice, not political coercion. Put another way, market commitment, not political commitment, is what we should strive for. 

Wind champions will whine that the dominance of fossil fuels leaves no chance for wind to compete without government help. So they push for a government coercion-fueled “energy transition,” often camouflaged behind “justice” or “democracy” labels. But that’s nonsense. In a free market, better products generally spell doom for the dominant but inferior products, if consumers so choose. That’s how genuine transitions come about: Think of the transistions from kerosene lighting to electric lighting; from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles; from silent movies to “talkies''; from film photography to digital photography; from analogue television to cable and now to streaming. These are a few examples of market transitions, the only legitimate kinds. It just so happens that wind cannot compete in the market because it is inferior in cost and reliability. Even today, in 2022, even after decades of subsidies and government favoritism, fossil fuels are the dominant market choice, which is why they’re still growing like gangbusters despite the utopian dreams and massive political favoritism of wind’s political champions. 

If “Wind power is the future [and] can fuel New Jersey,” why hasn’t it happened already? Why is it a perpetual future fuel? Despite a decades-long massive political push, including $trillions in subsidies worldwide and other government favoritism, no place on Earth does wind generation, and renewable energy more broadly, exist without the life support of reliable energy from fossil, nuclear, or hydro—and for good reason. Renewables simply cannot carry the primary load for well-known reasons, the intractable twin drawbacks of dilutedness and intermittency. 

Perhaps as-of-now unforeseen dramatic technological advances will someday make that possible. But then, it wouldn’t need subsidies, would it? Or for that matter fear-mongering “climate crisis” nonsense. But in a competitive, largely free energy market, solar and wind tech innovations would have to compete against tech progress on other energy sources, including not only fossil fuels but non-carbon energies like nuclear, hydro, and possibly even fusion. That’s as it should be. It’s a matter of justice.

We need political commitment, alright. But that commitment should be directed toward liberating the NJ market for all energy sources, rather than politically favoring some, like wind, while hampering others, like natural gas, which along with petroleum is facing a War on Pipelines. Why are renewables champions so afraid of competition? The answer is obvious for anyone willing to be informed. 

Related Reading;

Hyping the Energy Transition by Robert Bryce

The ‘Jihad on Pipelines,’ New Jersey Front

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century—Ronald Bailey

End preferences for unreliable electricity by Alex Epstein

NJ Launches Criminal Money Grab Against Vital Fossil Fuel Companies

According to reports, the state of New Jersey filed a major climate-related fraud lawsuit against five major oil companies. Let’s review excerpts from three recent articles on the lawsuit.

Steven Rodas reports this from N.J. lawsuit takes aim at 5 oil, gas companies for denying climate change exists, for NJ.com:

Inside the more than 130-year-old Central Railroad of New Jersey Terminal — which was battered by Hurricane Sandy ten years ago — state officials announced a lawsuit against five major oil and gas companies on Tuesday afternoon.

The 200-page civil suit says the companies, as well as a petroleum trade association, have knowingly lied to New Jerseyans about the existence and impact of climate change and the length at which the fossil fuels they have helped to burn worsen the planet.

Note the disingenuousness of the phrase “helped to burn.” No one was ever forced to buy oil company products. The products were sold to consumers in voluntary exchange. It is the consumers that actually burn the fossil fuels—to heat their homes, drive their cars, cook their food, and by buying all of the products that depend on fossil fuels to produce—in other words, to live. If they didn’t buy and use the product as intended, there would be no oil and gas companies, and thus no alleged “existence and impact of climate change.” The companies are attacked. But the consumers that actually are responsible for burning fossil fuels—in other words, the actual villains by the anti-fossilists own logic—are let off the hook. Of course, it is the consumers who will ultimately pay, in higher prices and shortages, for this “fossil-free” movement. Neither crafters of this lawsuit travesty or the lapdog media will own up to this economic fact. But that’s just one indication of who the real fraudsters are.  

And on what standard do fossil fuels “worsen the planet?” Not on the standard of human life, which is better than ever for more people than ever. What we’re getting is anti-man Environmentalist trope being channeled by the lawsuit hucksters to attack an industry that actually improves the planet. To the climate catastrophist, “worsen the planet” means a more livable planet for humans. This is a classic bait-and-switch, a favorite tool of fraudsters.

Note also the bait-and-switch in the first paragraph, naming Hurricane Sandy (which was actually not a hurricane at landfall). The implication is that Sandy was caused in whole or in part by the oil companies. There is no evidence of this absurdity, nor can there ever be. Weather is not climate. Sandy was caused by a confluence of naturally occurring atmospheric conditions that have long been known and ultimately expected. In other words, Sandy was no surprise to weather experts, including me. Nor was it a surprise to the authors of Great Storms of the Jersey Shore, who in their first edition included a chapter called The Storm that Ate the Jersey Shore, a fictional story about a storm that Sandy replicated almost to a “T”. * Yet Sandy appears in an article featuring climate change, as if it was some entirely new and unexpected phenomenon. This is just one way the architects of this lawsuit and their media lapdogs are themselves committing fraud.  

 

In Lawsuit filed against oil companies, claiming systemic fraud, published in NJ Spotlight News, David Cruz reports:

 

New Jersey is taking on the fossil-fuel industry, suing five oil and gas companies along with their trade group alleging they knowingly deceived the public about the role of fossil fuels in climate change. The announcement Tuesday from the state attorney general and Department of Environmental Protection accuses the companies of being aware for decades that the use of fossil fuels is a major cause of climate change. It is now causing New Jersey to experience rising sea levels, hotter temperatures and increasingly intense storms. 

But according to the lawsuit, the industry instead launched a public relations campaign to sow doubt and confuse the public about the causes and existence of climate change —in order to increase profits. New Jersey is now part of nearly two dozen similar climate lawsuits by other cities, states and counties. And it comes as New Jersey is still rebuilding vulnerable communities from major storms.

 

In any debate, someone will be wrong some of the time. If being wrong is grounds to be legally assaulted by politicians at taxpayer expense, you do not have free speech. You do not have public dissent and debate. You have a dictatorship. 

 

In this case, the targeted companies have for decades been meeting the demands of consumers, including governments, with the energy they need to operate, live, and prosper. It has powered the Great Enrichment that has given us longer, healthier, safer lives than at any time in history, by far. Their continued growth powers the continuing betterment for more people the world over, right up to this day. 

 

In NJ Spotlight News article NJ suit wants fossil-fuel industry to pay for damages done by climate change, Jon Hurdle reports:

 

The suit, filed in Superior Court Tuesday, is seeking civil monetary penalties for the impacts of climate change. These include flooding of coastal wetlands that are being lost to the rising seas caused by global warming.

Of course, sea levels have been rising since the end of the last glacial advance. Further, part of the “rise” is really due to a sinking coastline. How much of sea level rise is natural, how much is geological, and how much is manmade vs. natural climatic variability? Of course, the lawsuit hucksters, hungry for the big bucks, don’t care about sorting out the facts. 

Attorney General Matthew Platkin announced the suit against five major oil companies and their trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, saying the industry failed to warn the public that its products were dangerous. Instead, it sought to sow public doubts that fossil-fuel emissions were linked to climate change.

Well, if the public ever didn’t know in some distant past “that its products were dangerous,” it certainly knows now. Sundry Environmentalist alarmists and anti-fossil fuel zealots have been telling us for decades of the alleged coming disasters. Certainly, given the steady growth of the hydrocarbon industry over the past half century of alarmism and zealotry, the public “knew” yet continued to shower these companies with purchases, profits, and steady growth. Where, exactly, is the alleged harm of the companies’ “failure to warn the public'' or efforts to allegedly “sow public doubts that fossil-fuel emissions were linked to climate change” long known by the public? 

“They went to great lengths to hide the truth and mislead the people of New Jersey and the world,” Platkin said, in launching the suit against Exxon, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and the API. “These companies put their profits ahead of our safety.”

These profits, of course, were earned by providing their customers with vital safety-enhancing energy products. That the energy nihilists could wholesale condemn the fossil fuel companies for the comparatively minor and manageable negative side effects of the use of their products while ignoring the incomparably monumental benefits their products have and continue to provide to human well-being is truly one of the great injustices.

Even if the state is 100% right on every charge on “rising sea levels, hotter temperatures and increasingly intense storms”—which, of course, it is not—this lawsuit is a fraud and injustice of almost unimaginable proportions because it totally and one-sidedly ignores the positives of fossil fuels. Given the most vital value of hydrocarbon energy to every other industry and every aspect of their customers lives—which is basically everyone—this continuing War on Fossil Fuels is monumentally destructive and ultimately massively genocidal. The NJ government officials who are party to this travesty are criminals, should be impeached, and ultimately prosecuted for libelous demonizing of honorable private companies, abuse of their political authority, and misuse of taxpayer monies.

 

Finally, this discussion can’t end without pointing out the monumental HYPOCRISY—all upper case—of this and similar lawsuits. In an op-ed for NJ Spotlight News, Michael Busler points out the straight forward absurdity of this and similar lawsuits. Busler opines:

 

On the other hand, the state of New Jersey, along with some individual coastal communities across the U.S., including Hoboken, has taken the antagonistic and ineffective approach of filing climate lawsuits. In 2020, Hoboken followed cities such as San Francisco by filing a lawsuit against a handful of energy companies, in this case alleging that energy companies violated the state’s Consumer Fraud Act and should pay for climate-related damages. This claim falls apart when one considers that Hoboken officials have relied on energy products for decades, using them for their transportation, electricity, and heating and cooling needs.

On Oct. 18 of this year, New Jersey again threw itself into the fray when Attorney General Matthew Platkin filed a case in Superior Court arguing that energy companies like Exxon Mobil, Shell and others violated New Jersey’s consumer fraud laws.

It makes little sense for Hoboken and others to allege “deception” by energy providers for selling products we need to keep our economy moving. Chevron recently pointed this reality out in an answer to Honolulu’s lawsuit, a copycat of the cases brought by the New Jersey attorney general and Hoboken. The brief reminded the court that federal officials have recognized that petroleum and natural gas are vital to modern life and, dating back to the 1950s, have weighed this against any potential climate-change risks by using ample data to make informed policy decisions.

 

My emphasis. 

 

This lawsuit and these articles are loaded with misinformation, lies, disingenuousness, obfuscation, omission, hypocrisy, and fraudulent claims. Let’s hope justice prevails in the courts. Our future well-being depends on it.

 

* [A link to the article can be found toward the back of the second edition.]

 

Related Reading:

 

5 trends shaping the future of energy by Alex Epstein

 

The Convoluted Logic of the “Climate Lobby”

If We’re Going to Place Blame, then Fossil Fuel Consumers are the Real Climate Culprits

The “Divest-Invest Philanthropy” Movement and its Statist Roots

 

“Was industrialisation worth it?” – California Climate Lawsuit by Eric Worrall for Watts Up With That?

New Jersey Legislature's Monstrous Interference into the State’s Giant Pension Fund

NJ public employees and retirees be aware: You are about to be thrown under the bus by your elected representatives, on the absurd rationalization of "the fight against climate change." 

As Steven Rodas and Derek Hall report for NJ.com in N.J. could divest its $92B pension fund from fossil fuels. What it means financially and for climate change:

New Jersey would join a growing list of states to divest its pension fund from fossil fuel companies if a long-stalled bill crosses the finish line in Trenton this fall.

The legislation (A1733), now in its fourth iteration after it was first introduced in 2017, has gained new momentum in recent weeks as the fight against climate change intensifies nationwide. It will be considered Thursday by the state Senate’s environment committee.

This is a purely political move. There is no economic, scientific, or financial justification for this order. 

Morally, this is monstrous. Energy is the industry that powers every other industry. Therefore, the availability of reliable, cost-effective energy is vital to every aspect of our lives. Fossil fuels provide 80% of that energy, and will continue to be needed for decades to come, as it continues to grow both in the U.S and worldwide in the current absence of any viable alternative or competition. By joining in the suicidal movement to starve the fossil fuel industry of investment capital, the legislature is courting with a monumental human catastrophe that would dwarf any problematic climate side effects of burning fossil fuels.

But it is also illegal. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the people managing pension funds in America are fiduciaries. This is what the department explains under the heading Fiduciary Responsibilities

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) protects your plan's assets by requiring that those persons or entities who exercise discretionary control or authority over plan management or plan assets, anyone with discretionary authority or responsibility for the administration of a plan, or anyone who provides investment advice to a plan for compensation or has any authority or responsibility to do so are subject to fiduciary responsibilities. Plan fiduciaries include, for example, plan trustees, plan administrators, and members of a plan's investment committee.

The primary responsibility of fiduciaries is to run the plan solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits and paying plan expenses. Fiduciaries must act prudently and must diversify the plan's investments in order to minimize the risk of large losses. In addition, they must follow the terms of plan documents to the extent that the plan terms are consistent with ERISA.  They also must avoid conflicts of interest. In other words, they may not engage in transactions on behalf of the plan that benefit parties related to the plan, such as other fiduciaries, services providers or the plan sponsor.

Fiduciaries who do not follow these principles of conduct may be personally liable to restore any losses to the plan, or to restore any profits made through improper use of plan assets. Courts may take whatever action is appropriate against fiduciaries who breach their duties under ERISA including their removal.

[emphasis added]

I don’t see how this conclusion can be avoided: Fossil fuel divestment is a major violation of the NJ pension managers' fiduciary responsibility. The fossil fuel industry is a major component of the common stock investment universe, and provides 80% of American energy. It is the industry that powers every other industry, and thus provides an indispensable product crucial to everyone’s short and long-term well-being. This obviously includes NJ public employees and retirees.  It follows that fossil fuels are crucial to a diversified portfolio, and thus a major component of investors' long term financial health. By cutting fossil fuels from its investment portfolio, the NJ pension fund is being forced to act against its sacred fiduciary trust to act only on the best interests of its public employee and retiree clients. 

The NJ legislature's coercive political interference in NJ's public employee pension fund injects a major conflict of interest into the management of the plans, another ERISA violation. It is explicitly forcing the pension fund investment managers to ignore an entire industry. This is outrageous. How can this order possibly be reconciled with the fund’s ERISA and fiduciary responsibilities? 

The entire NJ legislature should recuse itself from any power to micro-manage or affect in any way the investment decisions of the pension plan managers, who are legally duty-bound to comply with ERISA requirements specifically and to honor their moral responsibility to present and future retirees more generally.

Related Reading:

When Climate Dogmatism Meets Energy Reality

The “Divest-Invest Philanthropy” Movement and its Statist Roots

 RELATED: Protecting Oil Companies’ Rights is Not a Government Subsidy

N.J. Governor Phil Murphy’s Hypocrisy on Saudi Arabia

Brent Johnson’s recent report, Saudi Arabia move to cut oil supply ‘a war on N.J. working families,’ Murphy says, is very instructive.

Gov. Phil Murphy’s “clean energy” agenda includes “weaning the state off its century-old addiction to fossil fuels.”

But if fossil fuels are as bad for N.J. residents as Murphy keeps saying, he should be cheering the Saudi cutbacks. Why doesn’t he? By criticizing them instead, Murphy is tacitly admitting that the Dem’s war on fossil fuels is destructive to the well-being of ordinary people. So if the Saudi cutback is analogous to “a war on N.J. working families,” then his agenda is analogous to “a nuclear holocaust” for N.J. As the worldwide energy crisis unfolds, the utopian anti-fossil fuel “clean energy” agenda is increasingly exposed by its own champions’ hypocrisy as a dangerous fraud. 

Related Reading:

When Climate Dogmatism Meets Energy Reality

The ‘Jihad on Pipelines,’ New Jersey Front

The False Promise of ‘Clean Solar Powered Utility Scale Energy’

My Letter Rebutting Sierra Club Opposition to N.J. PennEast Gas Pipeline

Human Energy Needs vs. 'Mother Earth'

Environmentalists Seeking to Deprive NJ Residents of Reliable Energy

Ecomodernism Is the Solution to Man-Made Climate Change—Ronald Bailey

My Quick Take on 'Opposing Views: Is Climate Change A Problem?'

I just watched Opposing Views: Is Climate Change A Problem? | Alex Epstein & Dr. Andrew Dessler. This is not a debate. It is two separate interviews. And this episode features one of the most dramatically opposing viewpoint presentations I’ve ever seen. Mikhaila Peterson really draws out the essences of the pro-catastrophe versus the pro-human sides of the climate change debate (which is at bottom an energy and political debate).

Here is my quick, though incomplete, take on the episode. But you’ll get the picture:

When someone says, “Just look out the window” to “see” climate change—let alone a “climate crisis”—you know you’re dealing with religion, not science. Just as a religionist can “see” God in anything, so the climate catastrophist can “see” climate change.

When every bad weather event is “evidence” of catastrophic climate change, you know you’re dealing with dogmatism. 

When fossil fuel companies are demonized, but the fossil fuel consumers who willingly buy their products are let off the hook, you know your dealing with injustice and bias. 

When all of the damage caused by extreme weather is labeled a cost of fossil fuel use and a subsidy for fossil fuel companies, even though storms, fires, heat waves, cold waves, et al have always occurred, you know your dealing with dishonesty. 

When the wild swings of climate over the recent past—well documented by Brian Fagan in The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850, which actually covers the multi-century Medieval Warm Period that came before the Little Ice Age—are ignored, you know that you’re dealing with historical white-washing. 

When someone tells you that “the free market won’t work” after the free markets unleashed by the Enlightenment gave us The Great Enrichment, including the ability to vastly increase man’s safety from climate dangers, you know your dealing with a statist who is not concerned with the voluntary choices or well-being of average people.

Dressler’s panic-mongering assertions and “renewable” energy pie-in-the sky propaganda are not much different from what I get from my daily newspapers. Epstein is a breath of fresh air, offering the needed balance, objectivity, and moral clarity. And there are others worth consulting. In addition to Epstein, you can turn to such experts as Pielke Jr, Koonan, Shellenberger, Lomborg, Bailey, Bryce, and Moore, to name a few. I wonder if Dressler’s students are getting the opposing view. They’re probably leaving his classroom with an irrational dread of the future, and being panicked into voting for authoritarianism, at a time when the planet has never been more hospitable for human flourishing, and the future is the brightest young people have ever faced, albeit not without threats from the likes of Environmentalism, socialism, egalitarianism, Wokism, and other anti-human isms. These students are victims of educational malpractice.

 

The points I touch on will be clarified when you watch Opposing Views: Is Climate Change A Problem? | Alex Epstein & Dr. Andrew Dessler. One note: Epstein was interviewed after Dressler, even though Epstein is presented first.

Here is a list of books that anyone who wants to get past the quasi-coordinated efforts by the political/media/crony businessEnvironmentalist complex to convince us that the end of the world is rushing toward us and the only way to avoid the coming catastrophe is to grant the catastrophists totalitarian powers to direct our lives:  

Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less by Alex Epstein

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-First Century by Ronald Bailey 

Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress -- Steven Pinker

Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom by Patrick Moore

Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us by Michael Shellenberger 

False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet by Bjorn Lomborg 

The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change by Roger Pielke Jr. 

Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Steven E. Koonin  

State of Fear by Michael Crichton 

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein  

A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations by Robert Bryce  

Related Reading:

New U.N. Study Shows Climate Catastrophists Getting More Open About their Totalitarian Designs

‘Climate Crisis’: The Dem’s Path to Totalitarian Socialism

The 'Watermelon' Analogy is Real, and it is Dangerous

Environmentalists, Luddites, and Collectivism

Paris Climate Agreement Adopted: New Central Plan for the World’s Economy and Climate—Ronald Bailey for Reason.com