The view of Earth’s energy production and climate is evolving

May 12, 2026

Climate and energy are two very important topics. They can be closely related and over the last few decades they have been very closely related. Very serious problems were predicted to effect Earth’s climate due to the damage fossil fuels were supposedly causing.

The Fulcrum7 website provided a list of predictions of disaster due mostly to our energy production that did not come true:

1) In 1970, S. Dillon Ripley, a wildlife conservationist who served as secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, warned that 75 percent to 80 percent of species would be extinct by 1995.

2) In 1970, Kenneth Watt, an ecologist and professor at the University of California, Davis, warned that "there won't be any more crude oil," that "none of our land will be usable" for agriculture, and the world would be 11 degrees colder by the year 2000. 

3) In 1970, biologist Paul Ehrlich at Stanford University warned that by the end of the decade up to 200 million people would die each year from starvation due to overpopulation, life expectancy would plummet to 42 years, and all ocean life would perish. 

4) In 1970, Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, predicted that "world population will outrun food supplies" and "the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine" by the year 2000.

5) In 1971, Dr. S. I. Rasool, an atmospheric scientist at NASA, predicted the coming of a "new ice age" within 50 years.

6) In 1975, Ehrlich, the Stanford biologist, warned that 90 percent of tropical rainforests and 50 percent of species would disappear within 30 years. 

7) In 1988, Hussein Shihab, environmental affairs director of the Maldives, warned that his island nation would be completely underwater within 30 years, which wouldn't even matter because experts also predicted the Maldives would run out of drinking water by 1992.

8) In 2004, a Pentagon analysis warned of global anarchy due to climate change.  Major European cities would be underwater by 2020, at which point Britain would suffer from a "Siberian" climate.

9) In 2008, Bob Woodruff of ABC News hosted a two-hour climate change special warning that New York City could be underwater by 2015, among other apocalyptic predictions.

10) In 2009, former vice president and climate activist Al Gore predicted the Arctic Ocean would have no ice by 2014, which is the same thing Greta Thunberg said would happen by 2022.

Al Gore also issued several other warnings that were false, including: Kilimanjaro’s no more snows within a decade; Glacier National Park glaciers gone by 2020; Polar ice caps ice free by 2016.

Enough scientists and others agreed with these predictions, forcing decisions on energy production that had significant negative influences on the American people, how they lived and where they worked. Fossil fuels, which were the primary sources of energy production for decades, were ruled dangerous, and wind and solar production were advertised as the solutions to the dangers of fossil fuels.

Coal-fired electric plants were closed or scheduled for closure. Mining operations were cut back or shut down. And the use of wind and solar facilities was increased.

As time has passed, the problems with wind and solar have become more well-known. Solar panels don’t work when the sun doesn’t shine, and wind turbines don’t work when the wind doesn’t blow. Thus, dependable 24-hour-per-day backup systems and large battery facilities are needed. 

Both wind and solar systems take up lots of land and use materials that are difficult and expensive to obtain, and their panels and turbines are also difficult or impossible to recycle after they wear out.

And now the scientific reality of clean, renewable energy being so much better is being weakened by scientific data from scientists who are not afraid to talk about the understated problems of wind and solar, and the overstated problems of fossil fuels.

A good many respected scientists say that not only is CO2 not the huge problem we have been told it is, but that we actually need more of it to contribute to plant growth, which will produce more oxygen and consume more CO2.

The reality of the problems of wind and solar, and the exaggerated story of CO2 problems caused by fossil fuels are now recognized for the damage they have done. We are seeing shut down coal-fired power plants reopening, along with the mining industry beginning a comeback.

Chris Hamilton, President of the West Virginia Coal Association, tells us that, “There are moments when events strip away the luxury of theory and force a return to first principles. This is one of those moments. Recently, President Donald Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to strengthen America’s coal supply chains and reinforce the backbone of reliable, affordable electric generation. The order authorizes federal support for mining, transportation, export and domestic terminals, generating unit availability, and long-term fuel security. It is a direct acknowledgment that coal remains indispensable to the stability of the American power system and to the broader national interest.”

The coal industry, so helpful to our area in the past, likely won’t reach its previous levels. But increased coal use will be a good thing.

Coal and the other fossil fuels are still very important

June 25, 2025

Anyone who has lived in, or spent much time in this region knows and understands the importance of the coal industry to its development. Without coal, so much that occurred and that we enjoyed would not have happened.

Tens of thousands of jobs and who knows how much money passed through the region due to the mining, sale and transportation of coal mined here to other places.

Over the next several years, Bluefield became the center of activity resulting from the coal boom that occurred several decades ago. It was the finance and shopping center for the southern West Virginia and southwestern Virginia coal fields. People came here from towns miles away because of Bluefield’s role in the coal industry, and the things it offered to them.

How many of us remember driving along Bluefield/Princeton Avenue and seeing dozens or hundreds of coal cars on the railroad tracks loaded with coal moving out of the railyard, and dozens more empty cars on their way back to be refilled?

This lasted for many years, and the area prospered during that time.

However, as life evolves, things change. New and better ways of doing things come to be, and the old ways gradually fade away. 

This process is slow, gradual and not very painful. The other side of that story occurs when some factions start pushing for change before its time, and with things other than the natural replacements.

Unfortunately, the latter process has been the catalyst for what has occurred in the southern West Virginia and southwestern Virginia region’s coal industry.

The idea that burning fossil fuels like coal and oil was damaging to the environment took hold and resulted in what some have called “a war on coal,” which produced the closing of coal burning power plants, and the large decline in the need for coal. At least in the United States.

But science does not agree with the idea that we have too much CO2 in the atmosphere, and that it is harmful. In fact, quite a few scientists say that we need more, as much as two times the amount of CO2. They say that would be a great benefit to plant life. Plants and trees consume CO2 and emit oxygen. Having more plants and trees is a good thing.

During President Donald Trump’s first term the U.S. became energy independent and provided energy sources to other countries. This highly robust level of production was so strong that it lasted well into the Biden administration, despite Biden’s efforts to stifle it. The U.S. produced a record amount of energy in 2023, and out-performed that the following year. 

Eventually, the Biden administration’s efforts did cripple the energy industry. Other countries were still burning coal, and needing coal, oil and gasoline, but they were getting it from other countries, resulting in an economic punch in the gut to U.S. businesses.

The problem with the green energy solution that so many prefer is that while using green energy does not burn fossil fuels or add CO2 to the atmosphere, producing the elements that gather wind and solar power do. All of the materials that must be mined, then transported, and put into production use great amounts of gas and oil.

Now that Trump has been re-elected to the presidency, his administration is working to reinstate the previous philosophy on fossil fuels.

A West Virginia organization — Friends of Coal — based in Charleston, is excited about this change. “The recent decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to roll back burdensome greenhouse gas and toxic emissions regulations marks a pivotal moment for America’s energy future — and a long-overdue reprieve for the coal, natural gas and oil industries that power our nation,” it said.

In its June 20 email, Friends of Coal included a couple of other bright spots:

“The Trump administration on Wednesday formally reinstated the National Coal Council, an advisory group focused on fossil fuels that existed for more than three decades before lapsing under the Biden administration. The Department of Energy in a Federal Register notice restored the group.”

“President Trump took two major steps this week to end the 14-year old ...Democrat war against the coal industry and cheap electricity. Although greens have promised to sue, they are unlikely to succeed as the moves have pretty much been pre-approved by the Supreme Court.”

Some other states, even some that are not coal producers, understand how important it is.

In South Carolina, the state legislature is considering the new S.C. Energy Bill. The bill provides for “all of the above forms of energy for electricity 

generation.” One of the bill’s supporters noted that “the lowest cost, most reliable power that the Low Country has had delivered for over 80 years is from Santee-Cooper with over 60% of that low-cost electricity coming from the primary energy of coal.”

While it is very unlikely that these changes will spur a recovery in the coal industry that puts it back where it once was, things should improve locally, at least some.

And, like other changes the Trump administration supports, these changes will take some time to emerge as is the case with gasoline prices. 

Coal’s future is better than the climate change faction hoped

February 25, 2025

Those of us who have been around for a good while remember the days when dozens of train cars loaded with coal filled the Bluefield railyard and were seen moving coal on the tracks throughout the area. The immense effect coal had on the economics of the southern West Virginia and southwest Virginia regions was a greatly appreciated fact. That is what actually built much of the area.

Over the years, coal’s use has declined substantially, due to various factors, a major one of which is the climate change mania that took aim at coal, oil and natural gas as fuels. This action cost the region a heavy price.

The climate change faction has been sounding the alarm that there is a dangerous level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it needs to be immediately lowered. However, many scientists argue against that opinion. They say the CO2 level should be doubled to increase the growth of plants that in return produce the oxygen that feeds humanity and animals.

Even if the climate mania narrative is correct, the US effort to reduce CO2 by mandating cutting back on coal, oil and natural gas use made little to no difference in the CO2 level. The “improvements” we made were rendered moot by the greatly increased use by other nations. So, while thousands were put out of work, and other negative economic results were achieved in the US, China and India made that all seem pointless.

Friends of Coal is a non-profit organization based in Charleston, WV supporting the continued use of coal. “The supposed energy transition from fossil fuels to a suite of government-supported alternatives like wind and solar has always seemed more of a marketing campaign than reality,” a Friends of Coal newsletter stated. “It’s a transition that we are asked to believe has been ongoing since at least 2015 and the signing of the Paris Climate Accords, yet the percentage of primary energy supplied by oil, natural gas, and coal continues to hover right at the 80 percent level despite all the trillions of dollars in government subsidies thrown at the problem.”

Citing new leadership in West Virginia and the nation, Friends of Coal says that West Virginia’s coal industry has strong support for its part in “powering homes, businesses and national infrastructure.”

Coal also plays an important role in West Virginia’s economy by providing 15 percent of the state’s annual revenue and more than 50,000 jobs.

While coal’s part in producing electricity for the nation has been diminished over recent years, it is still active in that role, and is prepared to step up to help meet the predicted need for more electric power in the near future.

And the new US Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, told interviewers at Bloomberg that the time has come to halt the closing of coal-fired power plants that resulted from the war on coal under the direction of former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. "Coal has been essential to the United States' energy system for over 100 years,” he said. “It's been the largest source of global electricity for nearly 100 years, and it will be for decades to come, so we need to be realistic about that.”

And there is more good news for the industry. Increases in coal’s existing uses, and new uses for it are on the horizon.

Forbes reports that “India and the U.S. are plugging a hole in the market for steel-making coal caused by declining Chinese demand,” and the “dominance by China for steel-making, or coking coal, is fading as the Chinese Government encourages a slowdown in steel production.”

A report on the World Economic Forum website suggests that the uses of coal have not been fully realized. Coal is a highly varied material and its molecular complexity has not been explored for new uses.

Where coal has been being refined into basic elements and then used as a feedstock for the chemical industry’s production of plastics, dyes and solvents, it now is thought to be a basis for producing solar panels, batteries and electronic devices. 

It may also be used in manufacturing carbon products. Whereas petrochemical or biomass feedstocks are now used for products like carbon fiber and carbon additives for cements and the like, coal is now seen as a likely substitute for these processes. And, it has the further advantage of being a fairly cheap base material, which is a very positive factor.

Other new developments are also helping make coal more useful and less polluting. Through gasification and liquefaction processes, coal can be converted into synthetic gases or liquids, and these products can be processed into valued chemicals like methanol and hydrogen, which are used in industrial processes.

And processes like high efficiency low emission technologies work to reduce the emissions of coal-fired power plants. Carbon capture and storage processes are being developed to prevent CO2 emission from entering the atmosphere.

These new developments in the use of coal hold promise for the industry. And while it might not grow the industry to its former size and influence, it could again become a strong economic factor in places like southern West Virginia and southwestern Virginia.

Coal is still a valuable asset with many beneficial uses

November 19, 2024

Over recent years the amount of coal used in the US for producing electricity has dropped dramatically. This same decline can be seen across the globe, with 100 countries that have either gone coal-free or have set 2040 as a phase-out date.

The environmental movement is responsible for most of this, prompted by the Paris Agreement in 2015, where 75 nations focused on doing away with coal use by 2050. The environmental faction tells the story that burning coal is a major factor in what they say is the dangerous over-abundance of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere.

To correct this problem, we must stop using fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas to produce electricity, power vehicles or other uses. Even if it is true that we have too much CO2 in the atmosphere — and more than a few scientists argue that position isn’t true — this perspective ignores that fossil fuels contribute to our lives in other ways that are quite useful in addition to producing the power on which we rely so heavily.

And let’s not ignore the idea of many scientists that the level of CO2 in our atmosphere not only should not be reduced, but should be doubled to promote the growth of plant life. Plants and trees consume CO2 and release oxygen, which is critical to human life, into the atmosphere.

On this topic, Mining Digital tells us that “The demise of steam coal — also known as thermal coal — has been well documented, as investors shy away from the fossil fuel that fired the Industrial Revolution and has been an energy mainstay pretty much ever since, save for the past decade or so. Yet one corner of the coal market is thriving: metallurgical coal, otherwise known as coking coal, and vital for making steel.”

Coal is a critical part of steel, and steel is a huge factor in so many things, such as in buildings, as reinforcing rods in concrete, in bridges, tools, ships, trains, cars, bicycles, machines, electrical appliances, furniture, and weapons.

Oil is also used in many things, like plastics, fertilizers, petrochemicals crayons, dishwashing liquids, deodorant, eyeglasses, tires, ammonia, lubricants, coolants and paints.

So, you see, these fossil fuels have other uses as well as their contribution to electricity production and propelling vehicles and other devices of various descriptions. But the Biden/Harris administration, with its myopic view of reality and the manic anti-fossil fuel attitude of the left, wants to destroy fossil fuels, and especially coal, which has been, and can still be, so valuable to our region.

While coal use is still declining, and coal-fired power plants are fewer and fewer, the rate of that decline has slowed recently, as power demand is rising for datacenters and manufacturing entities.

And a forecast from S&P Global Commodity Insights points to this as a lifeline for coal power. “But tech companies are building power-hungry datacenters to support new artificial intelligence applications. Additional demand from new datacenters will double in just a year, to 47,448 GWh (Gigawatt hours) between 2024 and 2025, and rise more than eightfold by 2030 to 199,982 GWh.”

President-elect Donald Trump named former New York Rep. Lee Zeldin to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is thought that the EPA will ease regulations affecting fossil fuel-fired power plants.

Trump said of Zeldin, who served in the House from 2015 to 2023, that he will ensure “fair and swift” deregulatory decisions. The result of this will be a boon to American businesses and still maintain the highest environmental standards.

Zeldin said in a recent statement that, “We will restore US energy dominance, revitalize our auto industry to bring back American jobs, and make the US the global leader of AI. We will do so while protecting access to clean air and water.”

E&E News offered this idea of what will happen. “Some of the most stringent rules enacted by the Biden administration will likely end up in the dust bin, such as the agency’s regulations to reduce climate pollution from power plants, according to analysts. Other standards may survive in a weakened form, like the administration’s rules to lower methane emissions.”

“I think the power plant rule is pretty easy for them to revoke,” said Jeff Holmstead, who served as EPA’s air chief under President George W. Bush. “There’s really no one in industry who supports that rule. People just think that EPA was entirely unrealistic.”

Fortunately for those businesses and individuals who support the continued use of coal, not only for power production, but also for the other uses it has, the onset of the Trump/Vance administration is a breath of fresh air. 

Reversing the Biden administration’s mindless restrictions on coal, oil and other fossil fuels will allow the US to regain its position as energy independent, bring back to our country the sale of coal and gas that was sent to other countries by Biden’s orders, and bring down the needlessly high prices for gasoline and diesel fuel.

These changes will not restore the thriving coal industry of a few decades ago, but will allow its use for energy production as well as other positive purposes that have recently come to light.

What exactly is carbon dioxide, and why is it such a problem?

October 1, 2024

First it was “global warming,” and now it is “climate change.” It is caused, we are told, by too much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. CO2 is one-part carbon and two-parts oxygen. It is the carbon that is the problem.

“Carbon is a planetary paradox,” according to Arizona State University’s ASU News. “As the foundation for DNA, carbon is essential for all life on Earth. Yet, as part of the compound carbon dioxide, too much of it has built up in our air, threatening life on Earth as well.

“Today, carbon-based fuels power our very way of life. They support the global economy, transport networks and energy infrastructures. Addressing our carbon problem is, in a word, complex.

“Fortunately, it’s also a problem we can solve together.

“At Arizona State University, researchers explore many ways to reduce atmospheric carbon. And by working alongside industry, government, nonprofits and communities, they’re seeking solutions that are good not just for the planet but also human well-being.

“Experts from fields across ASU share how we can start to bring these systems into harmony and build a healthier world for ourselves and our children.

Why is carbon dioxide a problem?

“Our planet has an elegant system to recycle carbon. After making its way through plants, animals, soil, rock and ocean, it goes into the atmosphere — mainly as carbon dioxide — where it begins its journey again. But if Earth is so great at recycling carbon, how did we end up with too much in the atmosphere?

“Around 200 years ago, a key disturbance unbalanced this cycle. People found they could extract oil and coal — two forms of carbon called fossil fuels — and burn them for energy.

“In short time, our way of life came to depend on carbon-based fuel. Many of today’s amenities, like long-distance travel, buying food grown far away and lighting our homes, rely on this fuel.

“But these innovations have a hidden cost. As we burn fossil fuels, we release carbon back into the air, bypassing a natural process that would have taken thousands of years.

“From pre-industrial times to 2021, humans have added an extra 1.69 trillion metric tons to the atmosphere, and scientists estimate we added around 37 billion metric tons in 2022 alone.

“CO2 naturally traps heat, so all that extra CO2 increases Earth’s average temperature. This has noticeably affected our climate and weather patterns. These changes increase flood and fire risk, threaten crops and food security, endanger vulnerable species, expose us to new diseases, and force people to leave their homelands.”

So, that amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem. What besides CO2 is Earth’s atmosphere made of? While the list of components has 16 gases, it primarily consists of four gases: nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and carbon dioxide.

The function provided by each of these is described thusly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): “Nitrogen dilutes oxygen and prevents rapid burning at the Earth's surface. Living things need it to make proteins. Oxygen is used by all living things and is essential for respiration. It is also necessary for combustion (burning). 

“Argon is used in light bulbs, in double-pane windows, and to preserve museum objects such as the original Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Plants use carbon dioxide to make oxygen. Carbon dioxide also acts as a blanket that prevents the escape of heat into outer space.”

Because CO2 absorbs heat, it is blamed for contributing to the “greenhouse effect,” “global warming,” or “climate change.”

However, the NOAA website from July 2024 tells us that the proportion of these four gases is approximately as follows: nitrogen = 78 percent; oxygen = 20.9 percent; argon = 0.9 percent; carbon dioxide = 0.04 percent.

So, with all that extra CO2 from fossil fuel use, only 4 in 10,000 atmospheric particles are CO2.

As the NOAA said, “Plants use carbon dioxide to make oxygen.” So, plants “eat” CO2 and emit oxygen. That’s a good thing, right?

In Australia, China and nations in Africa, drylands are turning greener. Why? Because of the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

“The primary reason, most recent studies conclude, is the 50-percent rise in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere since preindustrial times,” according to Yale Environment 360, published by the Yale University School of the Environment.

David McGee, an associate professor in the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, is quoted on MIT’s Climate Portal saying that today’s CO2 levels are actually “nothing special.” “In the past, carbon dioxide levels have been much higher than they are today and much lower than they are today.”

And Earth’s temperatures have been both much higher and much lower than they are today.

Conceivably, the comparatively minor temperature and CO2 increases that have been witnessed recently are not so important in the context of those changes over many decades and centuries.

Perhaps these increases are not really the serious problem the climate crisis faction wants us to believe they are. And maybe if we make changes to how we do things, those changes should be less radical than those proposed.

The United States’ war on CO2 is having no actual effect

March 4, 2024

The idea that our atmosphere is heating up to dangerous levels continues. We are told that the cure to this temperature increase is the reduction or elimination of carbon emissions (CO2).

Looking at how carbon emissions changed from 2000 to 2018, we find that the United States and Europe had reduced their emissions, with the U.S. reducing by 10 percent, and Europe reducing by 16 percent, according to data from the Global Carbon Budget 2018.

As meager as that might seem to climate activists, it is enormously better than what some other nations were doing. India, for example, had increased its emissions by 155 percent, and China had trounced India, defeating it with a 208 percent increase.

Why is CO2 a crisis in the U.S. and Europe if two nations — India and China — are producing almost 15 times the carbon emissions that the U.S. and Europe are eliminating? And, China has been building one new coal-fired power plant per week. 

And more to the point, why should we in the U.S. have to purchase items that produce less CO2 and are less efficient, less desirable and more expensive? Or, why are we are unable to buy or use anymore items that we prefer because of their carbon emissions when all of that makes absolutely no difference in the effort to reduce emissions due to the monumental lack of concern of India and China?

However, in light of all of this we should consider whether CO2 is actually a real problem.

The National Geographic Society and National Geographic magazine published an article which said that “Earth’s atmosphere is composed of about 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, and 0.1 percent other gases. Trace amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and neon are some of the other gases that make up the remaining 0.1 percent.” 

So, CO2 and other gases combine for a grand total of just 1/10th of one percent of the atmosphere. But, let’s look deeper.

Yochanan Kushnir is a research professor at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, in the Division of Oceans and Climate Physics of Columbia University. He explains that of those other gases, carbon dioxide is only 0.04 percent — 4/100ths of a percent — of the entire atmospheric mixture. 

That figure is confirmed by other scientists, who also tell us that 95 percent of that 0.04 percent comes from natural sources, not human activity. Still others say that plant life will do better if the CO2 level was doubled.

While the effort to reduce or eliminate CO2 has affected household and other items, it also had a big effect on a large economic element in our region.

A policy of the Barack Obama administration limited power plant emissions and reduced domestic coal production. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards policy left power plants with the option of purchasing costly upgrades if they were to stay in business. This forced many plants across the country to close up shop, according to John Deskins, director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research in West Virginia University’s John Chambers College of Business and Economics.

West Virginia Coal Association President Chris Hamilton noted that these regulations forced six West Virginia plants to close, and hundreds across the country due to the financial burdens the policy caused.

He also said that West Virginia lost nearly half of its coal production, dropping from 165 million tons to less than 90 million tons.

Damian Phillips of WVNews wrote last week that coal production improved somewhat after Donald Trump became President. And Hamilton noted that During Trump’s first year in office, coal production rose in West Virginia alone.

“The state’s coal production stayed about the same in Trump’s second year,” Hamilton said, “but by the time the pandemic was in full swing, production around the country shut down, and it took more than a year for it to recover.”

Those of us living in southern West Virginia, southwest Virginia and other coal-producing areas have seen first-hand the harmful economic effects of the Obama policy. It is a policy that, according to the data presented earlier, must have been based on political ideals rather than scientific evidence.

And Phillips quoted Hamilton as saying that “Energy producers have warned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Biden administration that continuing with these policies may upset the national power grid, increasing the likelihood for outages.”

Previous dire warnings about climate catastrophe include that space satellites showed a new ice age coming fast; that there was no end in sight to 30-year cooling trend in northern hemisphere; that within five years the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely free of ice; and French foreign minister Laurent Fabius’ 2014 warning that "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos." None of these and other predictions of catastrophe actually came to be.

Given the long list of doomsday prognostications that didn’t occur, their breathtaking contrariness to climate reality, and the minuscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should neither worry about, nor continue to combat CO2, and stop punishing the American people by mandating inferior products and unnecessary costs.

Coal has been and will be an important factor in our lives

 

October 10, 2023

Some of us remember the days of many years ago being in downtown Bluefield, West Virginia and looking at the then-Norfolk & Western railyard, and seeing dozens, perhaps hundreds of train cars filled with coal, waiting to be taken to market. We also saw dozens of empty cars waiting to be taken to the mines to be refilled.

Those were the days when Bluefield, southern West Virginia and southwest Virginia were bustling with businesses and higher populations, largely due to a vibrant coal industry. But, alas, things began to change, and Bluefield and the surrounding area are much different today as a result.

Changes to coal’s popularity and broad usage have had a big impact on our area and other coal-producing areas. Some of the change was due to normal evolution, as other fuels became more popular and took more of the market. 

But more recently it has been a deliberate effort to kill coal as a fuel, highlighted by President Joe Biden and his fellow “progressives” as they drive toward the goal of killing fossil fuels in the name of protecting the environment.

In addition to, or perhaps a part of that effort is the announcement by former New York City mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg of a $500 million commitment to expand the Beyond Carbon campaign. Its goal is to close the nation’s remaining coal-fired power plants, to cut natural gas plant capacity in half, and stop any new gas plants from being opened within the next six years.

An email from the West Virginia Coal Association (WVCA) contains a statement from the president of the Pennsylvania Coal Alliance, Rachel Gleason. She commented that “It is an absolute attack on our state, our livelihoods, and our families. It is un-American that someone would use their wealth to destroy our state and nation’s industrial base and also seek to send a large segment of the 381,000 American workers in industry to the unemployment line while destabilizing electric reliability and security in America.” 

Likewise, our area will be further affected by this action. And Chris Hamilton, President of the West Virginia Coal Association, expressed his concerns about the future if this effort continues: “Energy experts agree that the U.S. will not have enough reliable energy production to meet demand, and Bloomberg’s efforts, if successful, may result in black- and brown-outs across the country. Bloomberg, the ultra-liberal national Democrat Party, and their environmental extremist group co-conspirators are marching America off an energy cliff and dooming American families to darker days.”  

This also concerns other coal-producing states. Wyoming’s Mining Association Executive Director, Travis Deti, also commented on this development. “It truly is astonishing to see an eccentric billionaire spend his fortune on cutting off people’s electricity. Bloomberg should be held accountable for his callous actions.”

In a communication from the WVCA, Hamilton tells about the coal industry today, and paints the dismal picture that West Virginia faces: “Remarkably, there’s been over $8 billion dollars in new investments in West Virginia mining operations over the past several years, including approximately $2 billion in 2022-2023. These investment dollars may not be of much value to those chasing shiny objects or, like President Biden, forcing a questionable transition away from fossil energy, but to 50,000-plus West Virginians who show up at a mine every day it is extremely important, and will serve to keep our state’s coal industry a vital part of West Virginia’s economy for decades to come.

“The impact the production of met coal alone has on West Virginia is significant, generating approximately $9.6 billion in total economic activity, supporting about 30,500 jobs, contributing nearly $554 million in tax revenue for US state and local governments, and producing about $2.5 billion in labor income in 2019. West Virginia is the leading producer of met coal nationally and we supplied nearly 63 percent of all the met coal distributed to U.S. coke plants.

“The coal industry also provides jobs in predominantly more rural areas of the state, allowing employees who choose to work in the sector the opportunity to stay in their communities.”

Whether the efforts of Biden and the others in the manic drive away from fossil fuels are built upon a true concern for the environment, or just one more effort to increase the level of control government has over the people it is designed to serve, is open to debate.

But if they were giving any value to the many scientists who say the war on CO2 is based upon faulty data, and that the country will not be able to function satisfactorily without a substantial amount of fossil fuel energy for many years in the future, they would not be so blindly determined to continue this war.

Some of the information presented comes from America's Coal Associations (ACA) which represent 381,000 American Workers and $261 billion in America’s economy. The ACA issued its statement on behalf of a dozen coal organizations across the country.

The problems of killing coal and the other fossil fuels are far from over.

Increasing federal control reduces our constitutional freedoms

September 19, 2023

Actions by those in positions of authority to push the boundaries of that authority took a huge step recently when New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham issued a public health order outlining efforts to combat gun violence in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. 

“I’m going to continue pushing to make sure that all of us are using every resource available to put an end to this public health emergency with the urgency it deserves,” she said. “I will not accept the status quo. Enough is enough.”

A provision of that public health order temporarily suspended both the open and concealed carrying of firearms in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County by those who had been granted carry permits by the state government.

The violations would result in civil penalties, not criminal penalties, but the fines imposed could be up to $5,000 per violation.

This action attempted to suspend rights guaranteed to the people by the U.S. Constitution, and that action brought swift and harsh criticism from both sides of the political aisle, and resulted in law suits against the action.

In response, U.S. District Court Judge David Urias agreed with plaintiffs who pointed out the violation of constitutional rights. He granted a temporary restraining order to block the suspension of gun rights. The order will remain in place until an Oct. 3 court hearing.

The rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution cannot be suspended on the whim of a mere elected official, whether that official is the president, a governor, an attorney general or a mayor. Yet this woman believed she had that authority in order to combat a local problem, a problem that many of her constituents argue is really not that much of a problem.

Recently we have seen government mandates and restrictions on our freedoms during the Covid pandemic, and others ostensibly to save the planet from climate change due to too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

The actions taken during Covid, and currently to combat the climate change that many people believe in, may actually have been taken for the best of reasons. However, they also constitute restrictions on the personal freedoms that the United States is known for. And they frequently inconvenience people and raise prices on things they want and need.

We recently increased our level of energy independence, but it was wiped out almost as soon as President Joe Biden took office. That forced the purchasing of materials and fuels from other countries like China and Russia, raised fuel prices substantially, and put thousands out of work. 

And, by the way, American oil and natural gas are the cleanest in the world. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., noted recently that “If we replaced Russian natural gas in Europe [with American natural gas], for one year, just one year, that would lower 215 million tons of emissions because our natural gas is 41 percent cleaner than Russian natural gas.” Biden’s war on fossil fuels has negatively affected his goal of reducing CO2 emissions.

Biden’s efforts to kill fossil fuels now has him campaigning to do away with gas-burning stoves, furnaces, fireplace logs and grills; creating stricter specifications for common appliances like clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, and others that will substantially increase the cost of those products.

There is the manic effort to decrease gas- and diesel-powered vehicles in favor of electric vehicles that cost much more, depend almost entirely upon China and other countries for the materials to build their batteries, and require fewer American employees to produce them than conventional vehicles. And then there is the needed enormous increase in our electric grid to be able to recharge these tens of thousands of EVs that Biden wants.

The Department of Justice not long ago involved itself in a local matter. When parents attended school board meetings to register their displeasure with some things that were going on in the school their children attended, the DOJ labeled them “domestic terrorists.” 

Even if the parents were behaving inappropriately, or even violently, it is not the job of the federal government to become involved in state or local matters. That is how our republic is designed.

This nation was formed by the several states that united for that purpose. They did not give up their right to control themselves in local matters by creating a federal government. The states still have a large degree of sovereignty that is protected by terms of the U.S. Constitution.

What we are seeing is an increasing effort by Democrats to empower the federal government to control virtually everything that goes on in our country. They are “fundamentally transforming” the country. 

That contradicts two of the primary goals of the Founders of the United States of America: a large degree of personal freedom, and a federal government limited in its power.

If this power-grab is allowed to continue, the once-great United States of America will some day in the future degenerate into just another Cuba or Venezuela, as the protections provided by the Constitution are gradually erased.  It will be a country whose citizens are at the mercy of autocrats who have complete control.

The problems associated with recycling plastics

August 15, 2023

The climate change faction, to which the Biden administration belongs, wants to do away with fossil fuels. But what they may not realize is that in addition to being fuel, some fossil fuels, like oil and natural gas, are basic elements in many things the American people need and want.

“Petrochemicals derived from oil and natural gas make the manufacturing of over 6,000 everyday products and high-tech devices possible,” Energy.gov tells us. 

“Major petrochemicals—including ethylene, propylene, acetylene, benzene, and toluene, as well as natural gas constituents like methane, propane, and ethane—are the feedstock chemicals for the production of many of the items we use and depend on every day. Modern life relies on the availability of these products that are made in the United States and across the globe.”

Energy.gov lists 161 of the 6,000 items that are made from oil and natural gas. The list includes: artificial limbs, asphalt, aspirin, awnings, backpacks, balloons, caulking, electric blankets, electrical tape, enamel, epoxy paint, eyeglasses, fan belts, faucet washers, fertilizers, hearing aids, heart valves, house paint, ink, insect repellent, insecticides, insulation, iPad/iPhone, petroleum jelly, pharmaceuticals, plastics, life jackets, light-weight aircraft, roofing, refrigerants, vinyl flooring, vitamin capsules, tires, tool boxes, toothbrushes, toothpaste, transparent tape, water pipes, wind turbine blades, and many more.

Many of those products are valuable and useful, so the mania to end fossil fuels carries with it a heavy price in terms of replacing these items.

One of those products is plastic. Take a guess at how many things that people use, want, and depend upon are made from or contain plastic?

Plastics, however, have a down side. So many plastic products are used once or a few times and discarded. Many people try to recycle them, but that is a non-existent entity, to a large degree.

An article on the National Public Radio (NPR) website addresses this. “The vast majority of plastic that people use, and in many cases put into blue recycling bins, is headed to landfills, or worse, according to a report from Greenpeace on the state of plastic recycling in the U.S.”

The article cites a report that the amount of plastic actually recycled and used for new products has fallen to only about 5 percent, and is expected to fall even further in the future.

“Greenpeace found that no plastic — not even soda bottles, one of the most prolific items thrown into recycling bins — meets the threshold to be called "recyclable" according to standards set by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation New Plastic Economy Initiative,” the article continued. “Plastic must have a recycling rate of 30 percent to reach that standard; no plastic has ever been recycled and reused close to that rate.”

The NPR article also explained that “Waste management experts say the problem with plastic is that it is expensive to collect and sort. There are now thousands of different types of plastic, and none of them can be melted down together. Plastic also degrades after one or two uses. Greenpeace found that the more plastic is reused the more toxic it becomes.

“New plastic, on the other hand, is cheap and easy to produce. The result is that plastic trash has few markets — a reality the public has not wanted to hear,” NPR wrote.

There are tons of these un-reusable plastic items that are not really needed. Things such as packaging materials, shopping bags, straws, bottles, cups and such things were made of paper or glass prior to plastic being implemented, and we can move back in that direction. Paper and glass are much easier to recycle or dispose of than these plastic items.

So, while we need to cut back on the production of plastic items that can be replaced with materials that can be reused, or really are not needed, there are still many plastic items that we must continue to produce.

On the former point, “Environmentalists and lawmakers in some states are now pushing for legislation that bans single use plastics, and for ‘bottle bills’ which pay customers to bring back their plastic bottles,” NPR said. “The bills have led to successful recycling rates for plastic bottles in places like Oregon and Michigan, but have faced steep resistance from plastic and oil industry lobbyists.”

"The real solution is to switch to systems of reuse and refill," Lisa Ramsden, senior plastic campaigner for Greenpeace USA, said. "We are at a decision point on plastic pollution. It is time for corporations to turn off the plastic tap."

Joshua Baca, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council, criticized the Greenpeace view on plastics, and added that the industry is "on the cusp of a circularity revolution" regarding plastic recycling, and is "scaling up sortation, advanced recycling, and new partnerships that enable used plastic to be remade again and again."

Throwing used plastics in oceans and landfills has created a serious problem. It makes no sense to keep producing and then throwing away plastic items that are used once or a few times, like straws, wrappers, etc. Those items could be made from recyclable materials, or be made to be reused continuously.

Could the region possibly see a return of the good old days?

July 18, 2023

Those of us fortunate enough to be around this area in the 40s, 50s and 60s probably remember what Bluefield was like, back then. One of my vivid memories is in the years after WHIS-TV went on the air in 1955. The TV station and its radio siblings, WHIS-AM and FM were located on the third floor of what was then the Municipal Building on Bland Street, and is now the Arts Center.

I liked the TV and radio stations and hung around there a good bit. I remember standing at the windows overlooking Bland Street at 5:00 p.m. watching two lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic slowly crawling out of the downtown area. 

At that time the downtown was filled and thriving: clothing stores, furniture stores, pharmacies, office buildings, banks, a music store, hotels, restaurants, a newspaper, railroad buildings, and more. Bluefield was the shopping center and banking center for the southern West Virginia and southwest Virginia coal fields, where tens of thousands of regional residents lived and worked.

The rail yard was filled with hundreds of train cars, both those dozens filled with coal getting ready to head out, and those empty cars ready to be filled up again. Empty tracks were not visible until you were out of the downtown area of both Bluefields.

The coal industry isn’t what it once was, due to natural and manmade events. Coal became naturally replaced for some uses by other fuels. But it also was targeted by governments, which caused great distress well before the job and business losses should have occurred, and over a much shorter time period than was either necessary or judicious.

Today, a large faction wants coal and other fossil fuels to be abandoned in favor of cleaner, “green” energy sources. But fortunately, there is still a need for these fuels, not only in America, but across the globe.

“Coal is an abundant natural resource that can be used as a source of energy, as a chemical source from which numerous synthetic compounds (e.g., dyes, oils, waxes, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides) can be derived,” Britannica.com explains, “and in the production of coke for metallurgical processes,” such as making steel.

Although burning coal for heat and energy are heavily opposed, coal is still a major source of energy for electricity, particularly in other countries like China and India. Also, the gasification and liquefaction of coal produce gaseous and liquid fuels that can be easily transported by pipeline and stored in tanks.

Britannica.com adds, “After the tremendous rise in coal use in the early 2000s, which was primarily driven by the growth of China’s economy, coal use worldwide peaked in 2012. Since then coal use has experienced a steady decline, offset largely by increases in natural gas use.”

For coal reserves, only China has more than the U.S., but the U.S. has nearly twice as much recoverable coal as China. And the industry is working to make burning coal a cleaner process.

“Meanwhile, more than a quarter trillion tons of coal lie underfoot, from the Appalachians through the Illinois Basin to the Rocky Mountains—enough to last 250 years at today's consumption rate,” according to National Geographic. “You hear it again and again: The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal. About 40 coal-burning power plants are now being designed or built in the U.S., [and] China, also rich in coal, could build several hundred by 2025.”

Clearly, there is and will be for a long time the need for coal produced in the two Virginias, and elsewhere.

Chris Hamilton, President & CEO West Virginia Coal Association, sent out an email thorough Friends of Coal recently, saying, “Throughout our state’s 160-year history, the coal industry has been a major driver behind West Virginia’s economy and billions of dollars of new investment will ensure that similar benefits are generated for the next 160 years.

“Despite all the hype you hear about a zero-carbon economy and transitioning to renewable, or intermittent energy forms, West Virginia’s metallurgical and thermal coals will continue to drive our economy while remaining a stable component of our state and nation’s energy mix,” he wrote.

The email contained some other relevant information:

* World coal use is growing with over 8 billion tons consumed in 2022.

* Coal accounts for over 50 percent of West Virginia’s total export product.

* West Virginia-produced coal accounts for over 40 percent of our nation’s total coal exports.

* Forty countries and 30 states rely on West Virginia coal to power their energy needs.

* West Virginia produces the highest quality metallurgical coal found anywhere in the world and 69 percent of the base fuel for domestic steel making.

The coal industry may not again become the powerful local economic engine it was back in the day, but it is still responsible for over $14 billion in annual economic activity for the state, provides 50,000-plus West Virginia jobs, and provides substantial severance tax collections for the state.

The coal reserves in our region constitute an opportunity to provide a product that the nation and the world will need for quite a while in the future, and an economic boost for the region.

Radical efforts in moving away from fossil fuels is very risky

May 23, 2023

There has been a lot of talk lately about gas stoves, and the possibility of them being banned.

A story from the January edition of Popular Mechanics magazine quoted Richard Trumpka, Jr., who is a commissioner on the U.S. Consumer Product and Safety Commission, as saying that due to concerns about health conditions such as respiratory illness, cancer, and childhood asthma, the federal government has a ban “on the table” to prohibit gas stoves in homes. “This is a hidden hazard. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned,” Trumpka said.

Trying to put concerns of a ban to rest, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm assured members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the Biden administration does not seek to ban gas stoves.

“I will say that the Department of Energy is not banning any gas stoves, that we are doing our duty to make sure that appliances are more energy efficient as we are required to do under the Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975,” she told the Committee. “Nobody’s taking my gas stove, nobody will take your gas stove. But in the future, gas stoves that are high-end, which is all that we looked at, can be more efficient.”

Also, at about the same time came news that in order to combat health and climate risks, the state of New York has banned the use of natural gas for cooking and heating in most new residential buildings. And, the Energy Department, “is proposing new efficiency rules for gas stoves that only about half of current models on the market would likely comply with,” The Washington Times reported.

Also, a number of cities in California, Massachusetts and Washington are working to end using natural gas in homes and other buildings.

Burning things like coal, oil, natural gas, kerosene and wood is not good for the environment, as we all know. Burning natural gas in stoves emits nitrogen dioxide (NO2) when it is burned at high temperatures in the presence of nitrogen in the atmosphere. This can irritate human airways and can cause or exacerbate respiratory problems. 

Smoking too much, drinking too much alcohol, and lots of other things are also harmful, but they are not banned, and in some cases not even heavily regulated. The key to this is knowing how harmful to people young and old is it to burn natural gas in homes. 

An article on the Scientific American website notes: “The American Gas Association (AGA), a natural gas industry group, issued a statement pushing back against the December 2022 study that linked gas cooking with asthma. The statement claimed the study authors did not conduct measurements of real-life appliance use and ignored some of the scientific literature on this topic. The AGA cited a separate study that found no evidence of a link between cooking with gas and asthma symptoms of diagnosis.”

While it is true that the AGA has a vested interest in opposing the idea that burning natural gas can potentially cause health issues, the Biden administration also has a vested interest: its mission to kill all fossil fuel use. But since American natural gas is the cleanest on Earth, is our use of it really that harmful to the environment?

And given the way China and India continue to increase their use of fossil fuels, and considering our efforts to make them cleaner, is our using them really a serious problem? Should the U.S. work at a pace to eliminate fossil fuels so fast that it will negatively affect its people, particularly when other nations increase their damage to the environment more than the U.S. reduces it?

Virginian Mark Christie serves on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). He wants people to understand the trouble the nation is headed toward with its current path on energy.

He joined the FERC panel in January 2021, prior to which he was a member and former chairman of the State Corporation Commission, Virginia’s energy regulator, for 17 years.

Appearing before a U.S. Senate committee earlier this month, Christie said that “The United States is heading for a very catastrophic situation in terms of reliability. The arithmetic doesn’t work,” he said. “This problem is coming. It’s coming quickly. The red lights are flashing.”

Christie bases his warning on problems in the recent past, such as the deadly energy catastrophe Texas experienced two years ago, and the problems in the eastern part of the country last year as Christmas approached.

Three other FERC commissioners joined him in the message to the Senate, and Virginia’s Governor Glenn Youngkin and Dominion Energy Virginia have expressed their concerns, too.

The message they are sending is that eliminating most or all fossil-fuel-produced electricity too rapidly, and replacing it only with wind and solar, is a recipe for failure. 

Wind and solar are nowhere near the point where they can carry the load alone. Solar panels and wind turbines produce nothing most of the time. Fossil fuels work all of the time.

Someday in the future wind and solar will have developed sufficiently through natural development to replace fossil fuels. We don’t need this radical effort to force it on the nation.

Re-imagining fossil fuels and their need in nations of the world

April 4, 2023

For the first time in more than a half-century the United States achieved energy independence in 2020 when our level of oil production exceeded our consumption.

This great milestone can be attributed to policies in preceding years that did not inhibit oil and gas production, and the oil and gas industry’s use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, which increased production.

As we all should know, oil and gas are important elements in the future, and will be for many years to come. Even President Joe Biden, who has the goal of ending our use of fossil fuels, admitted that back in February that “We are going to need oil for at least another decade.”

However, a year earlier, Biden began what has been called a “war on fossil fuels” with Executive Orders and policies that severely affected our oil and gas production.

As reported by CNBC, “Biden’s orders direct the secretary of the Interior Department to halt new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters, and begin a thorough review of existing permits for fossil fuel development.” In response to the anti-domestic energy position of the administration, domestic production cannot be increased to help lower prices and keep them lower.

Today, Americans face substantially higher prices on virtually everything in their lives, including electricity, gas and food. When Biden took office in January, 2021 the inflation rate was 1.4 percent, where it had been for the previous 10 months. Four months later inflation had risen to 5 percent, and hit a 40-year high last June of 9.1 percent. In December, inflation had fallen back to 5 percent, still roughly 4 times higher than when Biden took office.

Several factors contributed to the high level of inflation the country has experienced, and while it cannot be totally blamed on Biden policies, it is undeniable that his policies have contributed to the pain the people are living with.

In some parts of the country gas prices reached $5 a gallon, and the price of heating oil reached $5.52 a gallon. 

In response to the high prices of energy these days, the House of Representatives passed H.R.1, the Lower Energy Costs Act. 

The Lower Energy Costs Act addresses energy issues currently affecting the country by incorporating 25 individual pieces of legislation from three different House standing committees. Its goal is to increase domestic energy production and cure some of the price increases by undoing some of the Biden anti-energy policies.

Virginia 9th District Congressman Morgan Griffith described the Act this way: “It includes legislation to disapprove of Biden’s canceling of the Keystone XL pipeline, which cost the United States 11,000 American jobs and could have had a positive economic impact of between $3.4 - 9.6 billion. The additional oil would have been cheaper to transport to American refineries by pipeline, rather than moving the oil by truck or train. This would have kept gasoline prices from rising as much.”

H.R.1 requires the Department of the Interior to resume lease sales on federal lands and waters, and repeals many restrictions on the import and export of natural gas, including liquid natural gas. 

Also included in H.R.1 is legislation to repeal Biden’s natural gas production tax. This tax has helped increase household energy bills across the country. 

The Act reforms the country’s permitting process through changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitting process. These changes will streamline federal environmental reviews for all sectors of our economy by ensuring that the NEPA review challenges are substantive, and by setting deadlines for completion of the NEPA reviews.

It also repeals Section 134 of the Clean Air Act, relating to the greenhouse gas reduction fund. This $27 billion fund was implemented as part of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act to advance the bad policies of the Green New Deal.

Unfortunately, before the House passed H.R. 1, Biden threatened to veto the legislation, to the detriment of the country. And the Democrat-controlled Senate has so far indicated opposition to anything the Republican-led House passes.

The world’s need for continued use of fossil fuels, particularly oil products and natural gas, is obvious. And since the U.S. has abundant quantities that it and the rest of the world needs, we should continue to produce and sell those products until, through natural evolution, that need becomes non-existent. 

The United States does more to reduce carbon emissions than nearly any other country, and much better than China and India. Why punish Americans by imposing restrictions on their use of necessities and comforts to reduce these emissions when other countries are doing the opposite?

How is Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan working out for the country?

December 27, 2022

President Joe Biden campaigned on the phrase “Build Back Better,” and as president has frequently used the phrase. The point he was trying to make was that things were really not so good under then-President Donald Trump, and if the country just had the good sense to elect Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to the White House, things would improve.

Nearly half-way through his term, how is he doing?

A column by Beth Whitehead on The Federalist website is titled “11 Of The Biden Administration’s Greatest Failures So Far.” Let’s take a look at a few of these failures.

** Facilitating a Deadly Border - The effects of Biden’s refusal to enforce U.S. border and immigration laws are devastating. Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, has said before a Congressional committee that the border is not open. He also said that the problems were inherited. And, he later denied having said the border is not open.

Putting some detail on that claim, Newsweek reported in September that “Data from the U.S. Border Patrol and Office of Field Operations compiled by Newsweek show that the average number of encounters under Biden reached totals of roughly 189,000 per month, compared to an average of just under 51,000 per month during the Trump presidency.” Sounds like an open border, doesn’t it?

Our southern border is controlled by cartels, which make millions of dollars smuggling men, women, and children across the border, which can be, and has been deadly for many of them. 

They also smuggle drugs, like fentanyl, which is deadly, along with other dangerous drugs. The number of Americans and others killed by fentanyl is in the thousands, and other drugs have taken thousands more lives. 

Roughly 3 million persons will have walked or waded across the border in Biden’s first two years, and we know little if anything about most of them. Some of them are criminals. Some of them probably were ill. Some of them were likely kidnapped.

** Shipping Illegals to a Community Near You - The president secretly shipped illegal aliens across state borders and into suburban cities and neighborhoods, without taking measures to deal with them, or even notifying these cities that the illegals would be coming.

** Holding Kids Hostage to Trans Radicalism - “In May, the Biden administration attempted to strong-arm public schools into letting males who identify as transgender use girls’ bathrooms by threatening to pull federal funding for school lunches if they didn’t,” Whitehead reported. “That’s 30 million lunch-program students Biden took hostage to push his party’s trans radicalism.”

** Tapping into Emergency Petroleum Reserves - So dedicated to the idea of killing the American fossil fuel industry, Biden decided that he would kill thousands of energy jobs, cancel fossil fuel projects, and gives up our energy independence, which we gained in the Trump presidency, and make up for that loss of oil by releasing oil from the national reserve, which exists for emergency use. 

He tries to cover his tracks by blaming our shortage on Russian leader Vladimir Putin and the Ukraine war. But it doesn’t work. And Americans really enjoyed paying double for gasoline that now is only $1 or so per gallon higher than when he took office. He hasn’t told us how he plans to replenish the petroleum reserve’s oil, or if he knows he must. Perhaps he’ll buy the oil from Putin.

** Driving up Inflation - Biden’s brilliance has produced an economy that has chalked up 40-year high inflation of 7.9 percent. Trying again unsuccessfully to shift the blame to Putin, it is clearly Biden’s policies that have driven up the prices of everything Americans need and want, like gas, food, clothing, building materials and household items. 

He appointed Jerome Powell to be Federal Reserve chairman, and Powell printed money well after the “need” for it was over. That, along with the American Rescue Plan, set the stage for the current inflation cycle. So far there is nothing indicating an end to this misery.

“Under the Biden administration, consumer prices rose so much faster than wages that the average family lost $5,800 in real annual income,” reports the Heritage Foundation. “Skyrocketing interest rates account for another $1,300 in lost annual income,” for a total of $7,100.  

** Botching the Afghanistan Withdrawal - Moving American military out of Afghanistan was always something we knew we would do. But it was never intended to be the disaster that Biden created. We left too quickly, without giving the Afghan troops time to prepare, and abandoned Bagram Air Base. We left behind Americans and Afghan allies to fend for themselves. We also left billions of dollars in weapons and equipment, which are now in the hands of the Taliban.

No president is perfect, although some have done wonderful things. Biden, on the other hand, has set a new standard for imperfection. There is an ongoing debate as to whether these horrible ideas are his, or whether he is just doing as someone or some group is telling him. Regardless, the buck stops with him.

Summarizing Biden’s performance, his three Bs are actually four Ds: Dereliction, Dangerous, Disastrous, and Disgraceful.

Is now really the right time to buy an electric vehicle?

November 15, 2022

One of the things the green movement strongly encourages is moving away from gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles and replacing them with electric vehicles (EVs). Since EVs don’t burn gasoline or diesel fuel, they do not emit CO2 into the air, and this is one of the major advantages of EVs. There are also other positive things about EVs.

Some of those advantages, according to drivingelectric.com, are that they are simpler and more reliable. They are quiet and relaxing, but can also be fast and exciting. And since they have smaller engines and their very large batteries can be laid out underneath the vehicle, they have more luggage space and more legroom for passengers.

But there are other factors to the story.

Libertarian author, commentator, and consumer journalist John Stossel wrote an article published by the Daily Signal earlier this month addressing electric vehicles, explaining ways in which EVs are not the wonders their proponents would like for us to believe.

There is a rush to impose EVs on the public. For example, some states have banned gas-powered cars altogether. “California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order banning them by 2035,” Stossel wrote. “Oregon, Massachusetts, and New York copied California. Washington state’s politicians said they’d make it happen even faster, by 2030,” just several years from now.

Stossel quotes physicist Mark Mills of the Manhattan Institute, who said, “Electric cars are amazing. But they won’t change the future in any significant way (as far as) oil use or carbon dioxide emissions.”

Stossel wrote: “Inconvenient fact 1: Selling more electric cars won’t reduce oil use very much. ‘The world has 15, 18 million electric vehicles now,’ says Mills. ‘If we [somehow] get to 500 million, that would reduce world oil consumption by about 10%. That’s not nothing, but it doesn’t end the use of oil.’

“Inconvenient fact 2: Although driving an electric car puts little additional carbon into the air, producing the electricity to charge its battery adds plenty. Most of America’s electricity is produced by burning natural gas and coal. Just 12% comes from wind or solar power.” “You have to mine, somewhere on Earth, 500,000 pounds of minerals and rock to make one battery,” Mills said.

“If you’re worried about carbon dioxide,” says Mills, “the electric vehicle has emitted 10 to 20 tons of carbon dioxide (from the mining, manufacturing, and shipping) before it even gets to your driveway.”

“Volkswagen published an honest study [in which they] point out that the first 60,000 miles or so you’re driving an electric vehicle, that electric vehicle will have emitted more carbon dioxide than if you just drove a conventional vehicle,” Mills added. You would have to drive an electric car “100,000 miles” to reduce emissions by just “20 or 30%, which is not nothing, but it’s not zero.”

Stossel then adds: “If you live in New Zealand, where there’s lots of hydro and geothermal power, electric cars pollute less. But in America, your ‘zero-emission vehicle’ adds lots of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.”

There is also the possibility of batteries catching fire. Breitbart reported that “In July, a battery fire caused an electric bus to burst into flames in Hamden, Connecticut. Luckily, no one died in the inferno, although two transit workers and two firefighters were hospitalized as a result of the blaze, and a federal investigation was triggered.”

EVs will work pretty well close to home. They can be recharged overnight in your garage. But when you take a 200 mile or longer trip, finding a convenient charging station when you need one, and charging your EV may take a few hours. This depends upon the vehicle’s battery, the charging rate of the charger, and perhaps how long you must wait in line to access a charger.

“The average price for a brand new EV is about $55,000,” according to the National Motorists Association. “That’s considerably higher than the average four-door sedan, which runs about $35,000, according to Kelly Blue Book. Tax credits and gas savings can save you money, however, it’s going to take a few years to make up a potential $20,000 difference.”

“Totaling all factors [purchase price, maintenance and fuel costs] total costs over the average use of the vehicles are $71,770 for EV’s and $58,664 for gasoline powered cars.”

And then there’s the cost of replacing the battery, which lasts from 8 to 15 years. Consumer Affairs “reached out to five mechanics and technicians from different parts of the U.S. to see how much an EV battery replacement costs for different vehicles, and the average results ranged from $4,489 all the way to a staggering $17,658.”

So, the picture of electric vehicles to help save our environment from CO2 is a fuzzy one. And when costs and other factors are figured in, an EV is not yet a viable choice for millions of vehicle owners, especially those living in California, Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington.

As technology evolves, how we produce electricity, the capacity of our electric grid, and the prices involved will improve. But that is years in the future. We have to stop pushing new ideas so hard, and wait until they are ready for large scale use.