You may have noticed that the media aren't covering the Great Barrier Reef much this year, after reporting its imminent death incessantly for years. The reason is not no news but good news. The GBR has been rapidly improving—which doesn't fit the catastrophist agenda.
THREAD
The New York Times has for years been “reporting” on the Great Barrier Reef with these ominous headlines. Yet now that the reef has been dramatically improving, @nytimes is mute. My research team has been unable to find one story about the GBR’s improvement.
The Washington Post has, like the Times, been "reporting" on the Great Barrier Reef with ominous headlines for years. And they, too, aren't reporting at all on the reef's dramatic improvement. Why is the improvement of the Great Barrier Reef not news, @WashingtonPost?
Background: From 2016-2020, the mainstream media expressed extreme concern about the fate of the Great Barrier Reef--a huge, beautiful underwater landscape, formed by corals and brimming with life--portraying it as in irreparable decline due overwhelmingly to our CO2 emissions.
The Great Barrier Reef *was* experiencing significant bleaching, but there were many causes, including unusually warm local waters, predatory starfish, storms ravaging the reef, plus bleaching from the reef's natural lifecycle.
Instead of looking at bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef in an evenhanded way, the climate media downplayed all factors except for global warming--which they claimed would do irreparable damage by leading to warmer waters that corals couldn’t recover from.
It didn't make much sense that global warming would lead to irreparable decline of the Reef given that corals have been around for 100s of millions of years, are adaptable to extreme events, are resilient thanks to a high reproduction rate, and can grow faster in warmer temps.
Given the media’s professed concern for the Great Barrier Reef, you would think that an improvement in the reef would be cause for widespread celebration. But the reef has experienced a dramatic improvement in the last years, and the never-quiet climate media have nothing to say.
The climate media’s evasion of the Great Barrier Reef improvement confirms that they have no interest in the truth about what’s happening with climate and why. They are interested in attacking fossil fuels, attacking capitalism, and justifying vast expansions of government power.
Any science editor that covered the decline of the Great Barrier Reef but not its improvement should commit to correcting their failures--or be pressured into resigning. This includes the editors of the @nytimes, @washingtonpost, @cnn, @guardian, @usatoday, and @natgeo.
Why does it matter so much that the climate media only cover negative stories and ignore positive ones? Because it contributes to deadly energy policy by catastrophizing the side-effects of the fossil fuels that modern life depends on, while ignoring their massive benefits.
If you want to know more about why I believe fossil fuels are so crucial, and why climate catastrophizing is so dangerous, read my recent Congressional testimony. energytalkingpoints.com/alex-epstein-c…
Please share the story of the improving Great Barrier Reef with everyone who has publicly catastrophized about the GBR, such as @LeoDiCaprio, @MarkRuffalo, and @adriangrenier. Hopefully they will celebrate, share the good news, and walk back their climate catastrophism.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Canada has 3X the US’s oil reserves but less than 40% the production.
Why? Anti-oil politicians like Mark Carney who say they’re protecting Earth’s coldest country from global warming.
Here's the story of Canada's squandered oil opportunity—and how to reverse it 🇨🇦👇
*Canada has the greatest oil opportunity on Earth: > 3 times the reserves of the US, with lower production costs.*
Canada has 170 billion barrels of proven oil reserves—by far the largest of any free country. And its producers can profit at $44 oil, vs. >$57 for US shale.
Canadian oil production is also continuing to get cheaper. Oil sands operating costs have dropped 19% over the past five years, and the industry—which is still fine-tuning how to coax oil-like bitumen out of oil sands—has substantial room for further cost reductions.
In addition to its massive proven oil reserves, Canada also has massive unexplored oil resources. Canada’s Northwest Territories may contain up to 37% of Canada’s total oil reserves, much of it light crude, which is even cheaper to extract and transport than bitumen from oil sands.
*Canada is squandering its oil opportunity, with < 40% of US production and much slower growth.*
Given Canada's massive oil reserves and lower production costs, Canadian oil should have been growing far faster than US oil—on a path to producing even more oil than the US does.
Instead, Canada is totally squandering its oil opportunity, with less than 40% of US production and slower growth since 2010.
Why Congress's new budget should eliminate all IRA "tax credits"
1. They are subsidies 2. They promote inferior energy 3. They raise energy costs 4. They make energy unreliable 5. They increase our debt 6. They make our economy less productive 7. They don't lower CO2 emissions
*Truth 1: IRA energy tax credits are really just subsidies*
Real tax credits let productive industries keep/reinvest more of their profits.
Most IRA "tax credits" are transferable tax reduction certificates that unprofitable industries trade for cash. I.e., subsidies.
A tax credit lets productive industries pay less tax on profits, which enables them to reinvest in additional productivity.
But most IRA "tax credits" support activities that are unprofitable on a free market—e.g., solar, wind, hydrogen—and therefore have no taxes to reduce with credits.
How can unprofitable activities be set to get a trillion dollars in IRA "tax credits"?
Because they are aren't really tax credits but *transferable tax reduction certificates* that can be easily sold for cash to profitable companies (and sometimes the government itself).
Giving a trillion dollars in transferable tax cut certificates to unprofitable activities that pay no taxes is no different than giving transferable tax reduction certificates to individuals who pay no taxes.
It's a trillion dollar subsidy, not a tax credit.
*Truth 2: Every IRA subsidy promotes inferior energy*
Every subsidy has lobbyists who say it's somehow improving American energy.
But the fact is, they are demanding subsidies because the energy they are pushing is inferior and couldn't survive or thrive on a free market.
The IRA's "45Y" and "48E" subsidies will give $241-901 billion to companies for "clean electricity," mostly intermittent solar and wind—which would be used far less in a free market because they are so unreliable. E.g., CA has chronic reliability problems from depending on solar.
The IRA's "45X" Advanced Manufacturing Production subsidies will give companies $132-193 billion to inefficiently manufacture batteries, as well as the solar panels and wind turbines that are created huge reliability problems on our grid and increasing the cost of electricity.
The IRA's "30D," "25E," and "45W" subsidies will give $117-393 billion to companies for EVs—whose mix of cost and (in)convenience most consumers won't pay market prices for, and therefore need huge subsidies as well as mandates to buy.
The IRA's "45Q" subsidies will give companies $34-210 billion to capture CO2 and pump it underground—a process companies would use very little on a free market since it's so costly. E.g., carbon capture for a coal plant costs 4 times the price of the coal!
The IRA's "45V" subsidies give companies $33-100 billion for hydrogen fuel—which would exist very little in a free market because it's so expensive to make. Hydrogen costs 10 times what gasoline does for the same energy! And favored "green" hydrogen is even more!
The IRA's "45Z" subsidies will give companies $43 billion for various "clean fuel" projects, mostly biofuels—which would be used far less in a free market since they are expensive to produce and compete with food for cropland.
The IRA's "25C" and "25D" subsidies will pay (mostly wealthy) property owners $28-276 billion to use government-favored "energy efficiency" technologies like solar panels and heat pumps that they wouldn't otherwise use or be willing to pay for.
⚠️ WARNING: The secret UN carbon tax that's about to fleece America
Next week, the UN votes on an ocean carbon tax that would spike the price of food, fuel, and everyday essentials—hitting US the hardest.
Here's what the admin and Congress can do to stop this in its tracks👇🧵
The UN's International Maritime Organization (IMO) is supposed to ensure safe shipping around the world.
Instead, it's pushing a carbon tax on shipping fuel, with proposals ranging from $19 to $150/ton of CO2—the equivalent of adding $1.29 to the price of gasoline!
A $150/ton carbon tax on shipping would double fuel costs for large ships.
The marine fuel oil used to power most large ships costs ~$400/ton. Since burning one ton of marine fuel oil produces ~3.2 tons of CO2, a $150/ton carbon tax adds ~$480/ton—roughly doubling today's price.
Ever wonder why the Biden EPA was able to become an economic dictator, prohibiting most Americans from buying a gas car after 2032 and effectively banning all coal plants and new natgas plants after 2039?
It started with the Obama EPA's bogus "endangerment finding."
In 2009, the Obama EPA issued a "finding" that GHGs "endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations."
But GHGs mostly come from fossil fuels, which on net had clearly been enhancing health and welfare—and would continue doing so.