A major new investigation by @NPR of Calfornia's Gov. @GavinNewsom is damning:
"An investigation from @CapRadioNews and NPR’s California Newsroom found the governor has misrepresented his accomplishments and even disinvested in wildfire prevention."
"California’s response faltered under Newsom. After an initial jump during his first year in office, data obtained by CapRadio and NPR’s California Newsroom show Cal Fire’s fuel reduction output dropped by half in 2020, to levels below Gov. Jerry Brown’s final year in office."
Wait, it gets worse
"At the same time, Newsom slashed roughly $150 million from Cal Fire’s wildfire prevention budget. This year, data show that through Memorial Day, the annual number of acres worked remained low, despite fire season that threatens to be even more dangerous."
"The data show @GavinNewsom has done just 13% of the job he’s touted on his highest priority projects. The governor’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment over the course of two weeks, including a 500 word email that laid out the investigation’s findings."
Wait wait, it's worse than that
With the happy participation of "environmental journalists" around the world, the global news media last year, under the sway of Gavin and activist scientists, falsely blamed climate change for the state's historic, high-intensity fires.
In fact, much of the news media, including progressive media, had in years prior to last year *correctly* reported that the overwhelmingly main factor behind high-intensity fires was the over-accumulation of wood fuel
But in 2020, @GavinNewsom appealed to the partisan tribalism of "environmental journalists" and they overwhelmingly mis-described the high-intensity fires as climate-driven when in reality they were caused by poor forest management
The new report by @CapRadioNews shows that @GavinNewsom had an ulterior motive in misleading the public about California's high intensity fires: he was distracting attention from his own failure to expand fire treatments in forests.
"The head of Cal Fire, Chief Thom Porter, did grant an interview. He acknowledged the figures cited by Newsom were incorrect and took responsibility for the governor’s misstatements."
"Porter, who stood behind Newsom at a series of press conferences where the governor boasted of his accomplishments, said Cal Fire had neither 'done our job in educating the public, nor the governor’s office' about how to talk about its wildfire prevention efforts."
Got that? Gavin made Porter fall on his sword for Gavin. Classic.
"Porter confirmed the agency had fallen short of its fuel reduction goals. “It’s not something that I’m comfortable with,” he said. “It is something that I’m working to reconcile and to correct for the future.”
But is this because California doesn't have enough money? No.
"The 2019 budget allocated $355 million for wildfire prevention and resource management. The following year, after the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Newsom slashed that to $203 million — a decrease of more than 40%."
What California spends on forest fire prevention is trivial
For perspective, Gavin is proposing to spend $12 *billion* on homelessness
That's *59 times* more money than Gavin's 2020 wildfire prevention budget!
Nations spent trillions subsidizing solar & wind but the share of energy from fossil fuels is nearly unchanged, going from 80.3% to 80.2% over last 10 years
The reason is because unreliable, weather-dependent energies can’t replace reliable energies
In 2017 my colleagues @energybants@Ramamurthy_Arun discovered that there was no correlation between solar or wind and the “carbon intensity” of energy — CO2 emissions per unit of energy — at an aggregated level
By contrast, the deployment of nuclear & hydro was strongly correlated with declining carbon intensity of energy. Why? Because both are reliable, and can thus replace coal and nat gas plants, where solar panels & wind turbines cannot. They can only operate alongside fossil fuels.
Genocide & actual environmental justice is at stake
If you're capable of watching this video, then you're capable of understanding the inherently physical reason that renewables have massively negative environmental impacts
Energy-dense fuels require far less in the way of materials, and produces far less in the way of waste, compared to energy-dilute solar and wind
We think of solar panels as clean but there is no plan to deal with their toxic waste
Bombshell new study published in @HarvardBiz Review finds that solar panel waste will make the electricity produced by solar panels *four times* more expensive than experts had predicted
Here's why everything they said about solar was wrong
In 2018 I argued that solar panels weren’t clean & produce 300x more toxic waste than high-level nuclear waste. In contrast to nuclear waste, which is safely stored and never hurts anyone, solar waste threatens poor trash-pickers in sub-Saharan Africa.
An influential analyst, @solar_chase called my article, “a fine example of 'prove [renewable energy] is terrible by linking lots of reports which don't actually support your point..."
To clarify, nuclear plants *directly* employ ~1,200 workers/plant
They tend to be the best-paid energy workers
Solar farms temporarily employ low-wage, low-to-zero skill workers to install China-made panels, and 6-12, also low-wage maintenance workers, permanently
I was in the passenger seat of a crowded car, a politician who I knew was at the wheel (Pelosi? Breed?). She was happy and chatty, but there were bodies everywhere, some floating in water, and the road became increasingly narrow, curving, and dangerous.
“Stop the car!” I yelled
There was a man lying near the car with his dog
“Somebody help me!” I yelled, and jumped out of the car, but nobody did
I shook the man and yelled at him. “Are you okay?! Are you okay?!” I poked him once and again, harder. I checked his pulse. Nothing