In this newsletter:
1) Net Zero is dead as Asia turns to coal-fired energy future
Reuters, 27 September 2023
2) New Rosebank oil and gas field will ‘secure Britain against tyrants,’ says Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho
The Daily Telegraph, 27 September 2023
3) Volkswagen cuts EV output at German sites as demand craters
Bloomberg, 26 September 2023
4) Lufthansa would need 'half of Germany's electricity' to go green
Yahoo Finance, 26 September 2023
5) Mounting discontent augurs badly for EU Green Deal
Politico, 26 September 2023
6) How war in Ukraine sank Europe’s Net Zero plans
The Daily Telegraph, 26 September 2023
7) Net Zero: The great backpedaling is upon us
Doomberg, 27 September 2023
8) Ford taps the brakes on Biden’s EV push
Politico, 26 September 2023
9) Strike lines become the front line in EV war
E&E News, 27 September 2023
10) David Blackmon: If Trump wins, Net Zero is dead
The Daily Telegraph, 26 September 2023
11) Benny Peiser: The cost of Net Zero and its likely failure
Politics in Pubs, September 2023
12) Andrew Tettenborn: Letting Brussels rule on Net Zero is a risk to democracy
The Spectator, 27 September 2023
The Spectator, 27 September 2023
Full details:
1) Net Zero is dead as Asia turns to coal-fired energy future
Reuters, 27 September 2023
Reuters, 27 September 2023
NUSA DUA, Indonesia, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Asia's coal sector has gone from thinking they are in terminal decline as the world shifts to a net-zero carbon future to seeing themselves as being a part of the energy mix for decades to come, while raking in profits.
The bullish narrative was on full display at the industry's biggest gathering, the Coaltrans Asia conference held this week on the Indonesian resort island of Bali.
What has changed for the coal industry is that they no longer believe that renewable energies can be deployed fast enough, cheaply enough and at sufficient scale to push fossil fuels out of Asia's energy mix.
"The reality is that coal demand will continue to increase," Septian Hario Seto, Indonesia's deputy of investment at its Coordinating Ministry for Maritime and Investment Affairs, told the conference.
This was a common view, with delegates expressing scepticism over the pathways to net-zero emissions advocated by Western bodies such as the International Energy Agency.
While thermal coal does see some threat from natural gas, the view of virtually every market participant, from miners to traders to utilities and government officials, was that coal remains the cheaper and more secure alternative.
Full story
2) Massive Rosebank oil and gas field will ‘secure Britain against tyrants,’ says Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho
The Daily Telegraph, 27 September 2023
The bullish narrative was on full display at the industry's biggest gathering, the Coaltrans Asia conference held this week on the Indonesian resort island of Bali.
What has changed for the coal industry is that they no longer believe that renewable energies can be deployed fast enough, cheaply enough and at sufficient scale to push fossil fuels out of Asia's energy mix.
"The reality is that coal demand will continue to increase," Septian Hario Seto, Indonesia's deputy of investment at its Coordinating Ministry for Maritime and Investment Affairs, told the conference.
This was a common view, with delegates expressing scepticism over the pathways to net-zero emissions advocated by Western bodies such as the International Energy Agency.
While thermal coal does see some threat from natural gas, the view of virtually every market participant, from miners to traders to utilities and government officials, was that coal remains the cheaper and more secure alternative.
Full story
2) Massive Rosebank oil and gas field will ‘secure Britain against tyrants,’ says Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho
The Daily Telegraph, 27 September 2023
Britain’s largest untapped oil field in the North Sea has been approved by the Government in a move that will help bolster energy security.
The controversial Rosebank oil and gas project was granted consent by the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) on Monday, with the field holding up to 500m barrels of oil which ministers say will boost the UK’s energy independence.
Claire Coutinho, Energy Security Secretary said it will “make us more secure against tyrants” like Vladimir Putin, and contribute billions of pounds to the economy.
However, environmental activists, including Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, said the decision amounted to a “climate crime” and was “morally obscene”.
Environmental pressure group Uplift has already vowed to take legal action in a bid to halt the development.
It said it had written to the Government over concerns the approval was unlawful.
Rosebank is located 80 miles off the coast of Shetland and is the largest known remaining field in UK waters.
The announcement comes just a week after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak watered down the Government’s environmental policies. Campaigners are arguing Rosebank will make it harder for Britain to meet its net zero targets.
It also marks a political split as the Labour Party has said it will block all North Sea oil and gas licences, although Sir Keir Starmer has privately told Equinor it will not reverse any decisions made before the next election.
Rosebank is expected to generate £8.1bn of investment, Ithaca said on Wednesday, while £6.3bn is likely to benefit UK-based businesses, according to a study by Wood Mackenzie and Voar Energy.
Drilling could start in 2026, creating up to 1,200 jobs.
Full story
3) Volkswagen cuts EV output at German sites as demand craters
Bloomberg, 26 September 2023
The controversial Rosebank oil and gas project was granted consent by the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) on Monday, with the field holding up to 500m barrels of oil which ministers say will boost the UK’s energy independence.
Claire Coutinho, Energy Security Secretary said it will “make us more secure against tyrants” like Vladimir Putin, and contribute billions of pounds to the economy.
However, environmental activists, including Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, said the decision amounted to a “climate crime” and was “morally obscene”.
Environmental pressure group Uplift has already vowed to take legal action in a bid to halt the development.
It said it had written to the Government over concerns the approval was unlawful.
Rosebank is located 80 miles off the coast of Shetland and is the largest known remaining field in UK waters.
The announcement comes just a week after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak watered down the Government’s environmental policies. Campaigners are arguing Rosebank will make it harder for Britain to meet its net zero targets.
It also marks a political split as the Labour Party has said it will block all North Sea oil and gas licences, although Sir Keir Starmer has privately told Equinor it will not reverse any decisions made before the next election.
Rosebank is expected to generate £8.1bn of investment, Ithaca said on Wednesday, while £6.3bn is likely to benefit UK-based businesses, according to a study by Wood Mackenzie and Voar Energy.
Drilling could start in 2026, creating up to 1,200 jobs.
Full story
3) Volkswagen cuts EV output at German sites as demand craters
Bloomberg, 26 September 2023
Volkswagen AG is curbing the production of electric vehicle models at two German plants due to declining European demand and shrinking government subsidies.
Production of Volkswagen’s ID.3 and Cupra’s Born electric models will be dialed back at the German carmaker’s main EV factory in Zwickau until Oct. 16, a spokesperson said. Assembly of the ID.3 at a small-scale plant in Dresden will cease for the first two weeks of October.
VW is holding talks with local labor representatives on how production in Zwickau, located near the Czech border, will continue in the second half of October, the spokesperson said. Assembly in Dresden’s Glaeserne Manufaktur will return to normal during that period.
The appetite for EVs in Europe has been held back in recent months by higher energy, living and borrowing costs, as well as lingering consumer concerns about charging infrastructure and battery range. The German government’s decision to end subsidies for electric cars in company fleets this month led to a 171% increase in new EV registrations in August compared to the previous year, according to Germany’s VDA auto lobby.
Against that backdrop, Germany has led a months-long crusade to extend the use of internal combustion engines under the European Union’s climate plans through the use of so-called e-fuels.
Full story
4) Lufthansa would need 'half of Germany's electricity' to go green
Yahoo Finance, 26 September 2023
Production of Volkswagen’s ID.3 and Cupra’s Born electric models will be dialed back at the German carmaker’s main EV factory in Zwickau until Oct. 16, a spokesperson said. Assembly of the ID.3 at a small-scale plant in Dresden will cease for the first two weeks of October.
VW is holding talks with local labor representatives on how production in Zwickau, located near the Czech border, will continue in the second half of October, the spokesperson said. Assembly in Dresden’s Glaeserne Manufaktur will return to normal during that period.
The appetite for EVs in Europe has been held back in recent months by higher energy, living and borrowing costs, as well as lingering consumer concerns about charging infrastructure and battery range. The German government’s decision to end subsidies for electric cars in company fleets this month led to a 171% increase in new EV registrations in August compared to the previous year, according to Germany’s VDA auto lobby.
Against that backdrop, Germany has led a months-long crusade to extend the use of internal combustion engines under the European Union’s climate plans through the use of so-called e-fuels.
Full story
4) Lufthansa would need 'half of Germany's electricity' to go green
Yahoo Finance, 26 September 2023
Air transport giant Lufthansa would need to consume half of Germany's electricity production to run its entire fleet on green fuel, its boss has said, illustrating the complicated challenge of reducing emissions in the aviation industry.
Lufthansa, which has the largest airline fleet in Europe, "would need around half of Germany's electricity to convert it into synthetic fuel," estimated Carsten Spohr, the group's CEO, at a national aviation conference in Germany's Hamburg.
But both economics minister Robert Habeck and Federal Network Agency, which regulates Germany's electricity "won't give me that amount of energy," he added.
Synthetic fuels or e-fuels, which combine hydrogen - produced from decarbonized sources such as renewable energies - and CO2 captured from the air or from industrial fumes, are one way of decarbonizing the aviation sector.
However, the process requires a large quantity of green electricity to be produced, which Germany does not have, the head of Lufthansa pointed out. And because it has not yet been developed on an industrial scale, this fuel is still much more expensive than fossil fuels.
Full story
5) Mounting discontent augurs badly for EU Green Deal
Politico, 26 September 2023
Lufthansa, which has the largest airline fleet in Europe, "would need around half of Germany's electricity to convert it into synthetic fuel," estimated Carsten Spohr, the group's CEO, at a national aviation conference in Germany's Hamburg.
But both economics minister Robert Habeck and Federal Network Agency, which regulates Germany's electricity "won't give me that amount of energy," he added.
Synthetic fuels or e-fuels, which combine hydrogen - produced from decarbonized sources such as renewable energies - and CO2 captured from the air or from industrial fumes, are one way of decarbonizing the aviation sector.
However, the process requires a large quantity of green electricity to be produced, which Germany does not have, the head of Lufthansa pointed out. And because it has not yet been developed on an industrial scale, this fuel is still much more expensive than fossil fuels.
Full story
5) Mounting discontent augurs badly for EU Green Deal
Politico, 26 September 2023
Recent climate regulations are triggering an unintended backlash that risks undermining Europe’s very own climate agenda from within.
As the 2024 European election approaches, a notable shift is occurring across major countries in the European Union: Voters are turning away from Green parties amid a rising tide of right-wing populism and anti-EU sentiment.
Opinion polls consistently indicate substantial gains for hard-right parties in countries like Germany and Italy, coinciding with losses for centrist factions. And a significant portion of this shift can be attributed to voter dissatisfaction with the EU’s climate transition policies.
Since 2019, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has presided over the greenest Commission in history, and her commitment to the Green Deal has been unwavering. However, as she now aims to secure another term, von der Leyen may encounter a different political landscape while navigating the more contentious final pieces of the Green Deal, as well as its Fit for 55 legislative package.
Earlier this month, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola — who is part of the same center-right political grouping as von der Leyen — voiced her concern, emphasizing how the expanding list of climate and industrial regulations coming from Brussels is pushing voters toward populist and anti-EU parties ahead of next year’s election. And as the bloc’s climate approach is already generating social unrest in member countries, it’s time the EU reconsidered its approach.
The right-wing Farmer-Citizen Movement, which emerged in 2019, is now the dominant party in the Dutch Senate and all provincial assemblies. And the party is on a direct collision course with the EU over a Dutch policy to curb nitrogen from farming.
Italy’s right-wing government, voted in late last year, is also pushing back against various EU initiatives, arguing local businesses cannot afford the previously agreed-upon green targets. Italy has demanded the EU dilute a directive aimed at improving the energy efficiency of buildings, reevaluate plans to phase out combustion engines and questioned the drive to reduce industrial emissions.
Poland’s popular right-wing government has gone one step further, taking Brussels to court. The Polish government claims it has filed complaints regarding the bloc’s 2035 ban on combustion-engine vehicles, the accelerated emissions reduction target, the reduction of free carbon permits and what it considers to be interference in national forest management.
In Germany, meanwhile, concerns over a law to phase out oil and gas heating nearly broke the ruling coalition this spring. And after weeks of negotiations, the original bill was watered down. Dissatisfaction with the EU’s 2035 ban on combustion vehicles also turned the country’s centrist voters more Euroskeptic, even impacting all three parties in Germany’s Traffic Light coalition in state elections this year, according to pollsters.
The EU has consistently positioned itself as a global leader in the bid to curb climate change, advocating ambitious targets and endorsing green initiatives. However, effective climate action demands more than regulations — it necessitates strong incentives to drive behavioral change, foster industrial collaboration and, above all, instill a public understanding of the transition’s advantages.
But while well-intentioned, EU regulations have inadvertently fostered a perception of excessive bureaucracy and regulatory burdens for both citizens and companies. Instead of emphasizing the potential benefits of transitioning to a green economy through incentive schemes and initiatives, the Brussels policy machine has churned out a slew of fresh regulations and directives, triggering an unintended backlash that risks undermining Europe’s very own climate agenda from within.
Fueled by perceptions of overregulation, this growing discontent is amplifying the discord between the bloc’s climate aspirations and the practical realities faced by member countries.
Full post
6) How war in Ukraine sank Europe’s Net Zero plans
The Daily Telegraph, 26 September 2023
As the 2024 European election approaches, a notable shift is occurring across major countries in the European Union: Voters are turning away from Green parties amid a rising tide of right-wing populism and anti-EU sentiment.
Opinion polls consistently indicate substantial gains for hard-right parties in countries like Germany and Italy, coinciding with losses for centrist factions. And a significant portion of this shift can be attributed to voter dissatisfaction with the EU’s climate transition policies.
Since 2019, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has presided over the greenest Commission in history, and her commitment to the Green Deal has been unwavering. However, as she now aims to secure another term, von der Leyen may encounter a different political landscape while navigating the more contentious final pieces of the Green Deal, as well as its Fit for 55 legislative package.
Earlier this month, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola — who is part of the same center-right political grouping as von der Leyen — voiced her concern, emphasizing how the expanding list of climate and industrial regulations coming from Brussels is pushing voters toward populist and anti-EU parties ahead of next year’s election. And as the bloc’s climate approach is already generating social unrest in member countries, it’s time the EU reconsidered its approach.
The right-wing Farmer-Citizen Movement, which emerged in 2019, is now the dominant party in the Dutch Senate and all provincial assemblies. And the party is on a direct collision course with the EU over a Dutch policy to curb nitrogen from farming.
Italy’s right-wing government, voted in late last year, is also pushing back against various EU initiatives, arguing local businesses cannot afford the previously agreed-upon green targets. Italy has demanded the EU dilute a directive aimed at improving the energy efficiency of buildings, reevaluate plans to phase out combustion engines and questioned the drive to reduce industrial emissions.
Poland’s popular right-wing government has gone one step further, taking Brussels to court. The Polish government claims it has filed complaints regarding the bloc’s 2035 ban on combustion-engine vehicles, the accelerated emissions reduction target, the reduction of free carbon permits and what it considers to be interference in national forest management.
In Germany, meanwhile, concerns over a law to phase out oil and gas heating nearly broke the ruling coalition this spring. And after weeks of negotiations, the original bill was watered down. Dissatisfaction with the EU’s 2035 ban on combustion vehicles also turned the country’s centrist voters more Euroskeptic, even impacting all three parties in Germany’s Traffic Light coalition in state elections this year, according to pollsters.
The EU has consistently positioned itself as a global leader in the bid to curb climate change, advocating ambitious targets and endorsing green initiatives. However, effective climate action demands more than regulations — it necessitates strong incentives to drive behavioral change, foster industrial collaboration and, above all, instill a public understanding of the transition’s advantages.
But while well-intentioned, EU regulations have inadvertently fostered a perception of excessive bureaucracy and regulatory burdens for both citizens and companies. Instead of emphasizing the potential benefits of transitioning to a green economy through incentive schemes and initiatives, the Brussels policy machine has churned out a slew of fresh regulations and directives, triggering an unintended backlash that risks undermining Europe’s very own climate agenda from within.
Fueled by perceptions of overregulation, this growing discontent is amplifying the discord between the bloc’s climate aspirations and the practical realities faced by member countries.
Full post
6) How war in Ukraine sank Europe’s Net Zero plans
The Daily Telegraph, 26 September 2023
European politicians are reconsidering climate change action as they fear being punished by voters facing surging food and energy prices
Rishi Sunak is not the only European leader watering down his net zero ambitions in the face of a cost of living crisis caused by the war in Ukraine.
Putin’s illegal invasion sharply reduced economic growth and “considerably” pushed up inflation across the Continent, the Swiss National Bank said on Friday before warning worse was to come.
The British prime minister delayed a ban on petrol engines by five years to 2035, slowing the switch to expensive electric cars, and gave homeowners more time to swap their fossil fuel boilers for initially costly heat pumps last week.
EU countries have less freedom to chop and change green rules because the bloc has agreed a binding 2035 internal combustion engine ban, as well as emissions reductions targets of at least 55 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2050.
Politicians fear being punished by voters who are feeling the pinch of surging food and energy prices.
Full post
7) Net Zero: The great backpedaling is upon us
Doomberg, 27 September 2023
Rishi Sunak is not the only European leader watering down his net zero ambitions in the face of a cost of living crisis caused by the war in Ukraine.
Putin’s illegal invasion sharply reduced economic growth and “considerably” pushed up inflation across the Continent, the Swiss National Bank said on Friday before warning worse was to come.
The British prime minister delayed a ban on petrol engines by five years to 2035, slowing the switch to expensive electric cars, and gave homeowners more time to swap their fossil fuel boilers for initially costly heat pumps last week.
EU countries have less freedom to chop and change green rules because the bloc has agreed a binding 2035 internal combustion engine ban, as well as emissions reductions targets of at least 55 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2050.
Politicians fear being punished by voters who are feeling the pinch of surging food and energy prices.
Full post
7) Net Zero: The great backpedaling is upon us
Doomberg, 27 September 2023
“I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.” – Edgar Allan Poe
When it comes to opinions on climate change, the developed West is divided roughly into four camps, primarily as a function of political leanings. In one camp are those the media has labeled “hard right” or “climate deniers”—people who suspect climate change is a hoax used as cover to implement a global socialist agenda. On the other extreme sit those often labeled “hard left” or “climate alarmists”—people who believe the world is coming to an end, fossil fuels are to blame, and time is rapidly running out.
Between this polarity sits the vast majority of citizens, sorted into what we would call the “soft right” and “soft left.” Members of the soft right generally value environmental protections but put little stock into the idea that the planet is in existential danger. They also tend to be optimistic about humanity’s ability to respond to any climate challenge in light of historical adaptations and the exponential pace of today’s technology development. Those on the soft left assign more seriousness to the climate crisis, vote for candidates who promote environmental causes, and are ready to make lifestyle changes—to drive an electric vehicle, perhaps install solar panels on their roofs, and dutifully sort their trash to separate recyclables—in an eagerness to do their part.
We have long suspected that the soft left is only willing to go so far in this regard, reasonably drawing a line to shield their standard of living. This group is now aware of the Big Lie™ sold by climate alarmists — that we can radically reduce our use of fossil fuels without meaningfully impacting our lifestyles. It was fine enough to play footsie with such assumptions when energy was plentiful and interest rates hovered around zero, but as the energy crisis unfolded and inflationary pressures took hold, the initial consequences of decoupling from fossil fuels left many quietly wondering what exactly it is they signed up for.
Political cracks are beginning the appear in the left-leaning alliance, a group that has been the governing force in the West for much of the past two decades, and as the soft left shuffles to center, we expect reactionary fireworks from the alarmists. For early signs of leaks in the dam, we turn to the UK where the Conservative Party—charter members of the soft left—are leading the retreat back to reality (emphasis added throughout):
“Rishi Sunak on Wednesday ignited a business backlash and a Conservative civil war on the environment as he announced a series of U-turns on critical targets to tackle climate change. The UK prime minister pushed back a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035 in a delay that is strongly opposed by some carmakers…
Sunak also relaxed the 2035 phaseout target for the installation of new gas boilers by introducing an exemption for the most hard-pressed households so they will ‘never have to switch at all.’”
Sunak goes on to helpfully explain that “governments of all stripes have not been honest about the cost and trade-offs,” that the drive for Net Zero would impose “unacceptable costs on hard-pressed British families,” and that “we’re not going to save the planet by bankrupting the British people.” It’s almost as if he reads Doomberg. A perusal of 30 years’ worth of UK inflation data contextualizes Sunak’s newfound appreciation for physics:
The UK’s walk back from the cliff was followed swiftly by a similar retrenchment on the part of Sweden’s ruling party and comes on the heels of Canada’s reacceptance of nuclear power, the Biden administration’s active management of the oil markets with the expressed intent of lowering prices, the rightward tilt of the German electorate, and angst among the climate alarmists over the upcoming United Nations COP-28 annual gathering. Call us crazy, but we are sensing a pattern.
Full post
8) Ford taps the brakes on Biden’s EV push
Politico, 26 September 2023
When it comes to opinions on climate change, the developed West is divided roughly into four camps, primarily as a function of political leanings. In one camp are those the media has labeled “hard right” or “climate deniers”—people who suspect climate change is a hoax used as cover to implement a global socialist agenda. On the other extreme sit those often labeled “hard left” or “climate alarmists”—people who believe the world is coming to an end, fossil fuels are to blame, and time is rapidly running out.
Between this polarity sits the vast majority of citizens, sorted into what we would call the “soft right” and “soft left.” Members of the soft right generally value environmental protections but put little stock into the idea that the planet is in existential danger. They also tend to be optimistic about humanity’s ability to respond to any climate challenge in light of historical adaptations and the exponential pace of today’s technology development. Those on the soft left assign more seriousness to the climate crisis, vote for candidates who promote environmental causes, and are ready to make lifestyle changes—to drive an electric vehicle, perhaps install solar panels on their roofs, and dutifully sort their trash to separate recyclables—in an eagerness to do their part.
We have long suspected that the soft left is only willing to go so far in this regard, reasonably drawing a line to shield their standard of living. This group is now aware of the Big Lie™ sold by climate alarmists — that we can radically reduce our use of fossil fuels without meaningfully impacting our lifestyles. It was fine enough to play footsie with such assumptions when energy was plentiful and interest rates hovered around zero, but as the energy crisis unfolded and inflationary pressures took hold, the initial consequences of decoupling from fossil fuels left many quietly wondering what exactly it is they signed up for.
Political cracks are beginning the appear in the left-leaning alliance, a group that has been the governing force in the West for much of the past two decades, and as the soft left shuffles to center, we expect reactionary fireworks from the alarmists. For early signs of leaks in the dam, we turn to the UK where the Conservative Party—charter members of the soft left—are leading the retreat back to reality (emphasis added throughout):
“Rishi Sunak on Wednesday ignited a business backlash and a Conservative civil war on the environment as he announced a series of U-turns on critical targets to tackle climate change. The UK prime minister pushed back a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035 in a delay that is strongly opposed by some carmakers…
Sunak also relaxed the 2035 phaseout target for the installation of new gas boilers by introducing an exemption for the most hard-pressed households so they will ‘never have to switch at all.’”
Sunak goes on to helpfully explain that “governments of all stripes have not been honest about the cost and trade-offs,” that the drive for Net Zero would impose “unacceptable costs on hard-pressed British families,” and that “we’re not going to save the planet by bankrupting the British people.” It’s almost as if he reads Doomberg. A perusal of 30 years’ worth of UK inflation data contextualizes Sunak’s newfound appreciation for physics:
The UK’s walk back from the cliff was followed swiftly by a similar retrenchment on the part of Sweden’s ruling party and comes on the heels of Canada’s reacceptance of nuclear power, the Biden administration’s active management of the oil markets with the expressed intent of lowering prices, the rightward tilt of the German electorate, and angst among the climate alarmists over the upcoming United Nations COP-28 annual gathering. Call us crazy, but we are sensing a pattern.
Full post
8) Ford taps the brakes on Biden’s EV push
Politico, 26 September 2023
The $3.5 billion facility would be the first to manufacture next-gen lithium, iron and phosphate batteries on U.S. soil — a major boon for Biden’s twin goals of slashing planet-warming pollution and boosting domestic manufacturing. It would also employ some 2,500 unionized workers — a key feature for a labor-friendly president.
Ford’s decision to halt work on the plant comes as the United Auto Workers approaches week three of its strike against the company, along with General Motors and Stellantis. Auto workers are demanding higher wages to make up for years of employee concessions to management, amid a shift to EVs that threatens a long-term erosion of UAW jobs.
The union characterized the pause as a “shameful, barely veiled threat by Ford to cut jobs,” writes Hannah Northey.
“Closing 65 plants over the last 20 years wasn’t enough for the Big Three, now they want to threaten us with closing plants that aren’t even open yet,” UAW President Shawn Fain said.
The facility also looms large in Republican messaging against Biden’s green agenda. GOP lawmakers object to Ford’s plan to use Chinese battery technology, and many are calling for a permanent cancellation of the plant, write James Bikales and Kelsey Tamborrino. So are some residents of Marshall, Mich., who launched a lawsuit to halt the facility earlier this year, citing potential environmental impacts to the Kalamazoo River.
Full story
9) Strike lines become the front line in EV war
E&E News, 27 September 2023
Many of the Republican presidential candidates are offering the same message to striking autoworkers: Kill President Joe Biden’s plan to dramatically expand the electric vehicle market.
That position promises to be a theme at the second GOP debate Wednesday as seven candidates compete for airtime with former President Donald Trump, who is skipping the nationally broadcast debate to hold a rally in Michigan near the lines of striking autoworkers.
The Republican push against electric cars comes as both parties throw themselves into a political brawl in hopes of winning union votes. Trump’s narrow Michigan victory in 2016 paved his path to the White House — something he hopes to replicate.
“Joe Biden’s draconian and indefensible Electric Vehicle mandate will annihilate the U.S. auto industry and cost countless thousands of autoworkers their jobs,” Trump said Tuesday in a statement. “The only thing Biden could say today that would help the striking autoworkers is to announce the immediate termination of his ridiculous mandate.”
At least three other GOP candidates have described Biden’s EV policies as economic euthanasia.
Former Vice President Mike Pence said the United Auto Workers strike was a result of “Bidenomics and their green energy, electric vehicle agenda.”
“This drive toward electric vehicles, driving people away from gasoline-powered vehicles, any autoworker that’s paying attention would know that’s not in their long-term interest,” he said last week in an appearance on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) said while campaigning in Iowa last week that eliminating the administration’s EV push would create more jobs.
“With respect to the auto industry and the autoworkers, one of the things that’s a big threat to that is Biden’s push to impose electric vehicle mandates,” DeSantis told KCCI television in Des Moines. “The reality is that’s not where the market is. We want to preserve the ability of automakers to actually produce the type of vehicles that people want to buy.”
North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R) blamed Biden for what he said are policies that would weaken American car companies. He argued that “we’re going to be dependent on China for our transportation needs.”
Full story
10) David Blackmon: If Trump wins, Net Zero is dead
The Daily Telegraph, 26 September 2023
That position promises to be a theme at the second GOP debate Wednesday as seven candidates compete for airtime with former President Donald Trump, who is skipping the nationally broadcast debate to hold a rally in Michigan near the lines of striking autoworkers.
The Republican push against electric cars comes as both parties throw themselves into a political brawl in hopes of winning union votes. Trump’s narrow Michigan victory in 2016 paved his path to the White House — something he hopes to replicate.
“Joe Biden’s draconian and indefensible Electric Vehicle mandate will annihilate the U.S. auto industry and cost countless thousands of autoworkers their jobs,” Trump said Tuesday in a statement. “The only thing Biden could say today that would help the striking autoworkers is to announce the immediate termination of his ridiculous mandate.”
At least three other GOP candidates have described Biden’s EV policies as economic euthanasia.
Former Vice President Mike Pence said the United Auto Workers strike was a result of “Bidenomics and their green energy, electric vehicle agenda.”
“This drive toward electric vehicles, driving people away from gasoline-powered vehicles, any autoworker that’s paying attention would know that’s not in their long-term interest,” he said last week in an appearance on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) said while campaigning in Iowa last week that eliminating the administration’s EV push would create more jobs.
“With respect to the auto industry and the autoworkers, one of the things that’s a big threat to that is Biden’s push to impose electric vehicle mandates,” DeSantis told KCCI television in Des Moines. “The reality is that’s not where the market is. We want to preserve the ability of automakers to actually produce the type of vehicles that people want to buy.”
North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R) blamed Biden for what he said are policies that would weaken American car companies. He argued that “we’re going to be dependent on China for our transportation needs.”
Full story
10) David Blackmon: If Trump wins, Net Zero is dead
The Daily Telegraph, 26 September 2023
Rishi Sunak's turn away from green energy targets could spark a transatlantic energy alliance
Donald Trump took time out of his hectic election campaigning this week to congratulate Prime Minister Rishi Sunak for his intervention in an issue close to his heart: the fightback against climate targets. Sunak had pledged to roll back an array of Net Zero goals that have been either already set into law by the British government or remain a part of the extensive omnibus energy bill pushed by his own Conservative party.
“I always knew Sunak was smart, that he wasn’t going to destroy and bankrupt his nation for fake climate alarmists that don’t have a clue,” Trump said in the Truth Social post, adding, “Congratulations to Prime Minister Sunak for recognising this SCAM before it was too late!”
But the former President might want to cool his heels on that assumption for a bit. First, the 400-plus page energy bill remains under consideration in Parliament. Though the PM pledged to “set out a series of long-term decisions” in his speech, he has made no visible move yet to either pull the bill from consideration or substantially amend it to remove any of the onerous provisions it contains, some of which he promised to roll back.
Absent such changes, Sunak’s speech is rendered essentially meaningless as the costly and punitive Net Zero policies continue plowing inexorably forward. Actions speak louder than words, and quick action here is required.
But will Sunak take such action in the face of the post-speech blowback from most of the UK media, his political opposition and even some members of his own party who remain committed to their Net Zero virtue signaling exercises? Sunak tried to have things both ways in his speech, professing his ongoing fealty to the Net Zero dogma and boasting that he still plans on “doubling down on the new green industries of the future”.
For his own part, Trump never felt much need to virtue signal about the energy transition, which in the US only started in earnest after he had left office. Indeed, one of his earliest acts on this front was to pull the US out as a participating member of the Paris Accords, a policy reversed by his successor. While in office, Trump boasted about wanting the US oil and gas industry to “drill, baby, drill,” implementing expansionist policies that enhanced the country’s energy security, rendering it almost energy independent before the Covid bust set in during 2020.
Nothing much appears to have changed in Trump’s general approach to the energy question, and he promises if elected in 2024 to quickly reverse much of the Biden Green New Deal approach starting on the day he is sworn into office. There is no reason to disbelieve that commitment.
So, assuming Sunak follows through on the legislative front and further assuming a Trump victory in 2024 (he leads Biden by 9 points in the new Washington Post/ABC poll released over the weekend), would a two-pronged rollback of Net Zero action by a pair of the developed world’s strongest democracies ring a death knell for the entire green energy push?
Given the crucial role played in this energy transition by the application of multi-lateral peer pressure at the UN, it does seem reasonable to assume that a lessening of pressure from London and Washington DC would allow other nations to follow suit. We have already seen similar efforts to roll back Net Zero targets over the past year in developed nations like Sweden, Italy, and the Netherlands as their cost becomes clear.
Many undeveloped nations would be even more likely to pull back in the face of easing international pressure. Some of these governments have loudly protested the economically ruinous impacts of efforts by the OECD countries to deny them access to the same sources of energy that facilitated western growth throughout the past century. They would no doubt welcome an easing of such costly pressures.
Even China, still technically classified as a developing nation despite sporting the world’s 2nd largest economy, would likely welcome an easing of international scrutiny to keep investing hundreds of billions of dollars annually in less reliable energy sources as its own economy shows clear signs of slowing.
By making last week’s speech, PM Sunak has vaulted himself into a position to lead a movement towards a more rational, thoughtful approach to rebalancing global energy systems. Should both Sunak and Trump win their coming re-election efforts, the UK and US could form a powerful partnership in leading more rational and truly sustainable change.
11) Benny Peiser: The cost of Net Zero and its likely failure
Politics in Pubs, September 2023
Donald Trump took time out of his hectic election campaigning this week to congratulate Prime Minister Rishi Sunak for his intervention in an issue close to his heart: the fightback against climate targets. Sunak had pledged to roll back an array of Net Zero goals that have been either already set into law by the British government or remain a part of the extensive omnibus energy bill pushed by his own Conservative party.
“I always knew Sunak was smart, that he wasn’t going to destroy and bankrupt his nation for fake climate alarmists that don’t have a clue,” Trump said in the Truth Social post, adding, “Congratulations to Prime Minister Sunak for recognising this SCAM before it was too late!”
But the former President might want to cool his heels on that assumption for a bit. First, the 400-plus page energy bill remains under consideration in Parliament. Though the PM pledged to “set out a series of long-term decisions” in his speech, he has made no visible move yet to either pull the bill from consideration or substantially amend it to remove any of the onerous provisions it contains, some of which he promised to roll back.
Absent such changes, Sunak’s speech is rendered essentially meaningless as the costly and punitive Net Zero policies continue plowing inexorably forward. Actions speak louder than words, and quick action here is required.
But will Sunak take such action in the face of the post-speech blowback from most of the UK media, his political opposition and even some members of his own party who remain committed to their Net Zero virtue signaling exercises? Sunak tried to have things both ways in his speech, professing his ongoing fealty to the Net Zero dogma and boasting that he still plans on “doubling down on the new green industries of the future”.
For his own part, Trump never felt much need to virtue signal about the energy transition, which in the US only started in earnest after he had left office. Indeed, one of his earliest acts on this front was to pull the US out as a participating member of the Paris Accords, a policy reversed by his successor. While in office, Trump boasted about wanting the US oil and gas industry to “drill, baby, drill,” implementing expansionist policies that enhanced the country’s energy security, rendering it almost energy independent before the Covid bust set in during 2020.
Nothing much appears to have changed in Trump’s general approach to the energy question, and he promises if elected in 2024 to quickly reverse much of the Biden Green New Deal approach starting on the day he is sworn into office. There is no reason to disbelieve that commitment.
So, assuming Sunak follows through on the legislative front and further assuming a Trump victory in 2024 (he leads Biden by 9 points in the new Washington Post/ABC poll released over the weekend), would a two-pronged rollback of Net Zero action by a pair of the developed world’s strongest democracies ring a death knell for the entire green energy push?
Given the crucial role played in this energy transition by the application of multi-lateral peer pressure at the UN, it does seem reasonable to assume that a lessening of pressure from London and Washington DC would allow other nations to follow suit. We have already seen similar efforts to roll back Net Zero targets over the past year in developed nations like Sweden, Italy, and the Netherlands as their cost becomes clear.
Many undeveloped nations would be even more likely to pull back in the face of easing international pressure. Some of these governments have loudly protested the economically ruinous impacts of efforts by the OECD countries to deny them access to the same sources of energy that facilitated western growth throughout the past century. They would no doubt welcome an easing of such costly pressures.
Even China, still technically classified as a developing nation despite sporting the world’s 2nd largest economy, would likely welcome an easing of international scrutiny to keep investing hundreds of billions of dollars annually in less reliable energy sources as its own economy shows clear signs of slowing.
By making last week’s speech, PM Sunak has vaulted himself into a position to lead a movement towards a more rational, thoughtful approach to rebalancing global energy systems. Should both Sunak and Trump win their coming re-election efforts, the UK and US could form a powerful partnership in leading more rational and truly sustainable change.
11) Benny Peiser: The cost of Net Zero and its likely failure
Politics in Pubs, September 2023
On Thursday 14th September 2023, we were joined by our guest speaker, Dr Benny Peiser, Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and an active member of its campaigning arm, Net Zero Watch.
Origins of GWPF
The GWPF was launched by Lord Nigel Lawson and Dr. Peiser on 23 November 2009 in the House of Lords – in the run-up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit. Prior to that, Lord Lawson knew little about climate change but he was becoming increasingly concerned about the likely cost of international environmental polices, targets and agreements that UK ministers were signing up to.
From experience of serving as the chancellor for six years in the 1980s, Lawson knew that the Treasury was also unaware of the costs. He commissioned a House of Lords enquiry into the economics of climate change in order to uncover its financial implications.
After publishing his book, An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, Lawson joined forces with Dr. Peiser to set up the Global Warming Policy Foundation to aid policy makers and the general public.
No room for debate…
For a long time, nobody was interested in what the GWPF had to say in spite of its distinguished board. In fact, GWPF received so much opposition it was obliged by the Charities Commission to set up a separate campaigning arm. Net Zero Watch was born and its non-charity status enables it to make the political points that GWPF can’t.
Main stream media outlets like the BBC would not give airtime to any scepticism of the international response to climate change: the consensus was that the science was ‘settled’ and therefore there was no room, or need, for debate. Sceptics who dared to speak out against the quasi-religious faith in Net Zero risked (or experienced) cancel culture. Incurious columnists in newspapers allowed themselves to become brainwashed by the green agenda and, instead of investigating the science upon which it was based, extolled the virtues sold by politicians i.e. the growth in green jobs, cheap clean anergy, and wider benefits for the environment and humankind.
…but now the mood is shifting
However, Benny has noticed that in the last 12-18 months, talk of Net Zero matters has begun to change dramatically. News coverage in media like The Sun, Daily Mail, Telegraph and Daily Express is becoming more sceptical about Net Zero.
Columnists are beginning to question the cost of Net Zero policies relating to electric cars and home heating systems. They are highlighting the harm so-called ‘green’ policies will do to people’s living standards. The mood is shifting for the first time in twenty years – there is growing concern about where Net Zero is heading and some in main stream media are openly acknowledging that that it will end in tears.
The biggest irony
The biggest irony of the whole agenda occurred yesterday in Brussels when the EU publicly acknowledged that its own ‘green’ policies risk destroying the massive car industries of its member states. The EU has been one of the main custodians of ‘green’ laws, seeing huge trade opportunities for itself in forcing industry to manufacture ‘green’ products like electric vehicles (EVs), heat pumps, solar panels and wind turbines for sale to the rest of the world.
The rapid phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles, gas boilers and coal power stations was expected to create a new highly lucrative phase of industrialisation for European countries. However, the EU’s vision has been disturbed by China which is also preparing to flood the European market with ‘green’ products but with one key difference: the price tags. ‘Green’ products made in China are considerably cheaper than European ones. Chinese EVs retail from £10,000 compared to Europe EVs which cost upwards of £30,000. For many consumers the choice of whether to buy European or Chinese will be a no-brainer. The protectionist penny finally dropped in Brussels on Tuesday. Amid talk of imposing tariffs on Chinese EVs (which would make the switch to EVs much more expensive for consumers and undermine the climate emergency narrative), the EU hypocritically called for an investigation into the level of Chinese government subsidies made to its EV industry.
Full post
What is being demanded here is, in effect, that future environmental policy be determined in a technocratic way, by judges owing allegiance to no society or political unit, applying an instrument that is essentially beyond democratic change, and which in addition has never said anything explicit about the environment at all.
Any serious politician knows perfectly well by now that net zero 2050 won’t fly democratically. There was an inevitability about Rishi Sunak graciously allowing us longer to keep buying our petrol cars and using our gas boilers, not to mention Emmanuel Macron’s own subsequent climbdown on the gas boiler issue in France earlier this week. Their voters would not have stood for anything else.
But where does this now leave the serious climate activist? Effectively they have two choices: make the best of a democratic process which has turned against them, or move to take such decisions out of the hands of the voters.
There are ominous signs that they are increasingly inclined towards the latter, much more dangerous, course. One such straw in the wind is a high-profile case starting today in the European Court of Human Rights.
The nominal claimants are six Portuguese citizens aged between 11 and 24. They are suing 32 European states, including the UK, seeking what is effectively an order from the Strasbourg judges to keep strictly to the Paris accords and immediately act to keep warming below 1.5 degrees centigrade. Anything short of this, they say, threatens their human rights to life, to freedom from torture or degrading treatment, and to privacy, and unduly disadvantages them as against earlier generations.
The public relations accompanying this claim deserve full marks.
Graceful pictures of winsome teenagers combine nicely with evocations of David and Goliath, not to mention idealistic youth pitched against selfish middle age. And, it must be admitted, at least some of the money behind the campaign has been crowdfunded rather than handed out by well-heeled foundations. Nevertheless, this is still a development that should give us considerable pause.
For one thing, the claimants, while utterly sincere, are bit players. In reality, this is a fairly ordinary case of pressure groups engaging in lawfare as politics by other means. The whole thing is apparently co-ordinated by something called the Global Legal Action Network, or GLAN, and it has the overt backing of organisations such as Amnesty, Greenpeace and a number of other activist groups.
Secondly, behind all this lies an important bid by human rights lawyers (many of those instructed, incidentally, being English barristers) to stake a claim over what is for human rights law a pretty untouched field. Admittedly, their arguments are not quite as outlandish as you might think if armed merely with the words of the Human Rights Convention.
True, you might be forgiven for reading the right to life as something aimed at state death squads rather than freak weather fatalities, for interpreting torture or degrading treatment as meaning deliberate brutalisation rather than failing to control heatwaves and the duty not to discriminate in respecting human rights as having nothing to do with promoting intergenerational justice. But however correct in 1951 when we ratified the convention, such a view now puts you very firmly on the wrong side of history. All these rights have been creatively extended almost out of recognition, so as to cover not simply deliberate state atrocities but all sorts of activities and omissions that might shorten, blight or unequalise the life of people generally.
Nevertheless, no-one has seriously suggested so far that the convention gives the court the kind of remit that these human rights lawyers are now pressing for: a kind of roving commission to keep governments on their toes on all matters climate, and, whatever voters may think, to intervene in any case where it sees that lives, comfort and the interests of future generations are being hazarded to a greater extent than it regards as acceptable. As a lawyer for GLAN candidly admitted, if he gets what he is asking for – an order from the court to 32 states to ‘rapidly accelerate their climate mitigation efforts’ – this would be a ‘game changer’.
Full post
Origins of GWPF
The GWPF was launched by Lord Nigel Lawson and Dr. Peiser on 23 November 2009 in the House of Lords – in the run-up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit. Prior to that, Lord Lawson knew little about climate change but he was becoming increasingly concerned about the likely cost of international environmental polices, targets and agreements that UK ministers were signing up to.
From experience of serving as the chancellor for six years in the 1980s, Lawson knew that the Treasury was also unaware of the costs. He commissioned a House of Lords enquiry into the economics of climate change in order to uncover its financial implications.
After publishing his book, An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, Lawson joined forces with Dr. Peiser to set up the Global Warming Policy Foundation to aid policy makers and the general public.
No room for debate…
For a long time, nobody was interested in what the GWPF had to say in spite of its distinguished board. In fact, GWPF received so much opposition it was obliged by the Charities Commission to set up a separate campaigning arm. Net Zero Watch was born and its non-charity status enables it to make the political points that GWPF can’t.
Main stream media outlets like the BBC would not give airtime to any scepticism of the international response to climate change: the consensus was that the science was ‘settled’ and therefore there was no room, or need, for debate. Sceptics who dared to speak out against the quasi-religious faith in Net Zero risked (or experienced) cancel culture. Incurious columnists in newspapers allowed themselves to become brainwashed by the green agenda and, instead of investigating the science upon which it was based, extolled the virtues sold by politicians i.e. the growth in green jobs, cheap clean anergy, and wider benefits for the environment and humankind.
…but now the mood is shifting
However, Benny has noticed that in the last 12-18 months, talk of Net Zero matters has begun to change dramatically. News coverage in media like The Sun, Daily Mail, Telegraph and Daily Express is becoming more sceptical about Net Zero.
Columnists are beginning to question the cost of Net Zero policies relating to electric cars and home heating systems. They are highlighting the harm so-called ‘green’ policies will do to people’s living standards. The mood is shifting for the first time in twenty years – there is growing concern about where Net Zero is heading and some in main stream media are openly acknowledging that that it will end in tears.
The biggest irony
The biggest irony of the whole agenda occurred yesterday in Brussels when the EU publicly acknowledged that its own ‘green’ policies risk destroying the massive car industries of its member states. The EU has been one of the main custodians of ‘green’ laws, seeing huge trade opportunities for itself in forcing industry to manufacture ‘green’ products like electric vehicles (EVs), heat pumps, solar panels and wind turbines for sale to the rest of the world.
The rapid phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles, gas boilers and coal power stations was expected to create a new highly lucrative phase of industrialisation for European countries. However, the EU’s vision has been disturbed by China which is also preparing to flood the European market with ‘green’ products but with one key difference: the price tags. ‘Green’ products made in China are considerably cheaper than European ones. Chinese EVs retail from £10,000 compared to Europe EVs which cost upwards of £30,000. For many consumers the choice of whether to buy European or Chinese will be a no-brainer. The protectionist penny finally dropped in Brussels on Tuesday. Amid talk of imposing tariffs on Chinese EVs (which would make the switch to EVs much more expensive for consumers and undermine the climate emergency narrative), the EU hypocritically called for an investigation into the level of Chinese government subsidies made to its EV industry.
Full post
12) Andrew Tettenborn: Letting Brussels rule on Net Zero is a risk to democracy
The Spectator, 27 September 2023
The Spectator, 27 September 2023
Any serious politician knows perfectly well by now that net zero 2050 won’t fly democratically. There was an inevitability about Rishi Sunak graciously allowing us longer to keep buying our petrol cars and using our gas boilers, not to mention Emmanuel Macron’s own subsequent climbdown on the gas boiler issue in France earlier this week. Their voters would not have stood for anything else.
But where does this now leave the serious climate activist? Effectively they have two choices: make the best of a democratic process which has turned against them, or move to take such decisions out of the hands of the voters.
There are ominous signs that they are increasingly inclined towards the latter, much more dangerous, course. One such straw in the wind is a high-profile case starting today in the European Court of Human Rights.
The nominal claimants are six Portuguese citizens aged between 11 and 24. They are suing 32 European states, including the UK, seeking what is effectively an order from the Strasbourg judges to keep strictly to the Paris accords and immediately act to keep warming below 1.5 degrees centigrade. Anything short of this, they say, threatens their human rights to life, to freedom from torture or degrading treatment, and to privacy, and unduly disadvantages them as against earlier generations.
The public relations accompanying this claim deserve full marks.
Graceful pictures of winsome teenagers combine nicely with evocations of David and Goliath, not to mention idealistic youth pitched against selfish middle age. And, it must be admitted, at least some of the money behind the campaign has been crowdfunded rather than handed out by well-heeled foundations. Nevertheless, this is still a development that should give us considerable pause.
For one thing, the claimants, while utterly sincere, are bit players. In reality, this is a fairly ordinary case of pressure groups engaging in lawfare as politics by other means. The whole thing is apparently co-ordinated by something called the Global Legal Action Network, or GLAN, and it has the overt backing of organisations such as Amnesty, Greenpeace and a number of other activist groups.
Secondly, behind all this lies an important bid by human rights lawyers (many of those instructed, incidentally, being English barristers) to stake a claim over what is for human rights law a pretty untouched field. Admittedly, their arguments are not quite as outlandish as you might think if armed merely with the words of the Human Rights Convention.
True, you might be forgiven for reading the right to life as something aimed at state death squads rather than freak weather fatalities, for interpreting torture or degrading treatment as meaning deliberate brutalisation rather than failing to control heatwaves and the duty not to discriminate in respecting human rights as having nothing to do with promoting intergenerational justice. But however correct in 1951 when we ratified the convention, such a view now puts you very firmly on the wrong side of history. All these rights have been creatively extended almost out of recognition, so as to cover not simply deliberate state atrocities but all sorts of activities and omissions that might shorten, blight or unequalise the life of people generally.
Nevertheless, no-one has seriously suggested so far that the convention gives the court the kind of remit that these human rights lawyers are now pressing for: a kind of roving commission to keep governments on their toes on all matters climate, and, whatever voters may think, to intervene in any case where it sees that lives, comfort and the interests of future generations are being hazarded to a greater extent than it regards as acceptable. As a lawyer for GLAN candidly admitted, if he gets what he is asking for – an order from the court to 32 states to ‘rapidly accelerate their climate mitigation efforts’ – this would be a ‘game changer’.
Full post
The London-based Net Zero Watch is a campaign group set up to highlight and discuss the serious implications of expensive and poorly considered climate change policies. The Net Zero Watch newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.netzerowatch.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.