Was It Legal for Obama and Biden to Enter the Paris Accords?

   That Paris Agreement President Biden signed us onto, was it legal he did that? You realize the Constitution says treaties need to have two-thirds approval from the Senate, don't you? Executive orders don't work, right?

   Well, not that this makes it right, but almost 90 percent of international agreements (say roughly 15,000 of them) that the U.S. has entered since World War II have been approved as executive agreements.

   More to the point, however. the U.S. entered into the Global Climate Protection Act with approval of Congress. That law directs the U.S. to “work toward multilateral agreements” on climate change, and empowers the U.S. to “identify technologies and activities to limit mankind’s adverse effect on the global climate.”

   The law acknowledges that the global nature of climate change “will require vigorous efforts to achieve international cooperation,” and states that “such international cooperation will be greatly enhanced by United States Leadership." It explicitly authorizes the secretary of state to take international action consistent with United States domestic law. By my quick count, it was approved by a 51-39 vote in the Senate.

   That is not a two-thirds majority, but there are other acts of Congress that are more explicit in giving the president authority to enter such agreements -- and they did pass with two-thirds of the senators approving them. There was the Clean Air Act, which directs the president to “undertake to enter into international agreements” to protect the stratosphere. And, there was the Endangered Species Act directs the Executive Branch to enter into “bilateral or multilateral agreements to foreign countries.” The Senate vote was 89-10 for the Clean Air Act. The Endangered Species Act? It passed the senate with a 92-0 vote.

  So, should the Paris Agreement go back to the Senate? Or, do the Senate's approval of these laws make it legal? It seems both arguments have value.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Giddyup, My Little Electric Vehicle

    Make no mistake, converting to electric vehicles would reduce our carbon footprint. That being said, however, it will not be enough to adequately reduce greenhouse emissions.

   In the simplistic world we live in -- where rumors are our greatest source of information -- there are those who believe solving the climate change problem is as simple as wiping gasoline cars off the road and replacing them with electric vehicles. Not so fast, good buddy; you're wrong.

   Alternately, there are those who believe electric cars are worse for the climate than gasoline vehicles because of the power plant emissions incurred in manufacturing and charging the batteries. Hold on, pilgrim, you, too, are wrong. That rumor isn't much on truth -- it's a myth.

   Any car you put on the road is probably going to be made of metal. So it will take 7 to 10 tons of CO2 emissions to build the car body whether it is gasoline or electric. But, then there is the battery in the electric car. You will need to mine the lithium and such, and manufacture it into a battery. So, tack on another 9 tons of CO2 emissions for the electric car. At this point, the EV is twice as expensive as the combustion-engine model.

   And, then there are the greenhouse gases expended in refining the gasoline for the gasoline car and creating the electricity to recharge the battery of the electric car. Believe it or not, the amount to recharge the battery is leaning towards being twice what it costs to produce the gasoline that powers the combustion-engine car.

   Now things are even looking worse for the EV.

   It is not until you finally factor in tailpipe emissions that the carbon footprint of the gasoline car sails way past that of the electric vehicle. Of all the greenhouse gases it takes for a gasoline car, 74 percent of them come in the form of tailpipe emissions -- and at this point the gas-guzzler has more than twice the carbon footprint of its electric counterpart.

   And, while the tailpipe emissions thing is not going to go away, the other things causing C02 emissions from the automobile can be reduced. If you replace coal-powered power plants with solar or wind, that part of the CO2 footprint is drastically reduced. The CO2 emissions needed to manufacture the car body, and to refine the oil into gasoline, and to recharge the batteries -- most of that will disappear.

   That leaves only the tailpipe emissions. And, obviously, the EV has no tailpipe emissions and the combustion-engine car has a lot.

   Plus, the batteries of the EV need not just be junked when they expire. The magnesium, lithium, etc., can be recycled.

   Just the same, sweeping all gasoline cars off the road and replacing them with EVs is not going to be enough to solve the greenhouse emissions problem. Such things as combating the deforestation of trees, and reducing methane production from farm animals need to be added to the equation. So while the plan is to have gasoline and diesel cars completely off the roads by 2050, that will not be enough.

   As we work to lessen the carbon footprint of cars, there are other efforts we should (and are) endeavoring to implement. Carpooling hasn't worked very well, but we should not give up on that. Using mass transit instead of everyone driving their own cars would be a big benefit.

   But, how about this: If it is cost of producing a car that is such a big concern, how about we drive our cars until they drop? Today's cars are in circulation for 15-20 years. It would seem most of those cars could simply be repaired instead of junked, and the life of a car might double. That would reduce by half the need for manufacturing new vehicles. And, that would have an impact on our greenhouse emissions.

(Index -- Climate change info)

The Rivers, and Oceans, and Wells, and Rainfall Are but a Blessing

  It is fortuitous that the earth holds on to all its water, not letting it drift into space. Human life (along with other life) would disappear without that water. Even if the seepage into outerspace were slow, across the many millennia of time, earth would no longer be inhabitable.

   And, it is fortuitous that that the earth filters and cleans its own water.  The earth is its own greatest water recycler; it is the ultimate water treatment plant long before water treatment plants were created by humans.

   Humankind (as well as other life) would have disappeared long ago if the earth did not have its own way of purifying drinking water.

   Water is on the earth in the form of rivers and oceans. It is in the earth. It is the skies. We drill wells to get it, and we are blessed with rainfall to have it. It is in living creatures upon the earth. Seventy percent of the earth's surface is water. Sixty percent of the human body is water.

   In the United States, we use 355 billion gallons of water a day, a massive amount, but it touches but lightly on the total water on earth: 326 million trillion gallons. All this water is being recycled and used again and again and again. If it weren't, humans would die

   And, the water is not dribbling of into outerspace, or we, as humans, would have disappeared long ago.

  Whether you say there is a God who brought about this miracle, or you say it is just the way the heavens and a some of its planets evolved, it is fortuitous. 

(Index -- Climate change info)

Face Climate Change with a Smile, if You Will, but Face It

   When it comes to the fears of climate change, don't live in a world of gloom and doom. But, don't crawl under a rock, either. Face the facts; don't dismiss them. For if you dismiss the potential harms, you will only hasten them. Square your shoulders and face the world. Those who hide from the truth end up getting hurt by it. Those who run from the fight never win the fight. 

   Am I waxing thick in too many trite phrases? I have at least one more: It is better to look danger in the eye and stare it down, than to look away and suppose it doesn't exist.

   Greta Thunberg (or is it a ghost writer for her) notes how the media tries to accentuate the positive -- but perhaps goes too far. Read her words:

". . . since the media long for positive news as part of their policy of both-side reporting -- It can't be all gloom! -- the overall message that is conveyed, if any, is that action is being taken. It may not always go that well, but hey, they are actually trying real hard and there has definitely been a lot of progress made, so stop being so negative all the time!" 

  Greta is but typifying what she sees as the attitude of the media. But are we, as the public, also so anxious to look on the bright side that we are blinded from seeing the dark? You can't sugar coat a rotten plumb.

  Is climate change real? Courage comes with the belief you can slay an indomitable foe, but it does not come with laying down its sword and saying there is no foe. Facing the foe with a smile is good, but you still have to face him.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Climate Change: Bring It -- Woke and All -- Into Our Schools

    We signed on to do this, and we aren't doing it. The Paris Agreement calls for climate change to be taught in our schools.

   And, besides the fact we put our name on a document saying we would teach it, climate change should, should and should be a curriculum topic. What science today impacts society more? Are there many school topics, period, more crucial for mankind to understand?

   Yes, climate change is a polarizing topic. Despite the ever-increasing, irrefutable evidence that climate change is real -- despite the fact 99 percent of the scientists tell us it is -- many Americans are not convinced. Climate change, to them, is not a scientific study, but a woke lie. Politics are determining what is taught in our schools, not science. That is wrong. Some even point to climate change as proof science has gone astray and scientists are not to be trusted. 

   A few centuries ago, they believed the world was flat. And, there were those who kept on believing that even after someone sailed around the earth to prove it was not. 

   Perhaps this is why climate change needs to be taught. Knowledge is power, they say. But, knowledge cannot benefit a society if they refuse to believe it. It is important that people learn the truth as we slip closer and closer to the year when we reap the rewards of our disbelieve. It becomes urgent that people realize the danger.

   Politics? Do we simply say, Don't foist and your political beliefs on my children? Don't force your ideologies upon our kids?

   These are not political believes; they are scientific facts. This is not a political matter -- or should not be. It is not a matter for which one wing of the populace should be preventing the children from being taught. It is truth, and truth is being withheld from our children at the peril of their future. Don't let them live in the dark ages simply because some politician tells them it isn't true.

   When politicians become teachers, the truth gets left out.

(Index -- Climate change info)

All-Star Game Cheapens the NBA Brand

   Do fans ever go wild watching the warm-ups for a basketball game? Hey, I've got a great idea: Why not have the best players in the NBA get together and, rather than playing a game, just have the shootaround that traditionally comes before the game?

 That is what Sunday's NBA  All-Star game amounted to. We should change the name of the event to "the NBA Shootaround: Featuring the Best Players in the League Who Are Too Lazy to Play." We must wonder if any of the players even worked up a sweat. Lax defense? On many plays, there was no defense at all. 

   It was a sham, a charade and a travesty. It cheapened the whole NBA brand. It sullied the reputation of the league. After watching that, die-hard fans suddenly were considering abandoning their status as fans. It disrespected those who spent big money for their tickets. When players play like that, they have no honor. It doesn't matter what format you use -- East vs. West, Team Lebron vs. Team Giannis, International Stars vs. American Stars -- if they don't play defense, it becomes a farce nobody can stomach to endure.

   "The ratings are in for the 2023 NBA All-Star Game, and yikes. The news isn't great," read the beginning of one news story. Surprise, surprise.

   Of course the ratings were terrible. People were turning off their TVs in disgust five minutes into the game. The fans in the arena should have booed the players right off the court. 

   These days, the All-Star game is nothing more than the best players in the league playing like they are the worst players in the league. They should be demoted to the G-League for playing like that. 

  

Did McCarthy Violate a Trust, and Is This Really Transparency ?

    Is it "an egregious security breach," or a transparency-in-government move? U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has reportedly handed over to Fox News Host Tucker Carlson 44,000 hours of video footage from the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. 

   "When congressional leadership or congressional oversight committees ask for things like this, we just give it to them," Capitol Police Chief  Tom Manger said. That would account for how McCarthy gained access to the videos. The question is (one of the questions), did he have a public trust to protect the videos from going further, inasmuch as they contain insights into where cameras are and security protocols used to protect members of Congress and the Capitol Police, themselves? Did McCarthy prove to be someone who cannot be trusted with national secrets. He was trusted with sensitive material, only to turn around and release it to the public.

   A second question would be why did McCarthy release it only to Tucker Carlson? If you suppose the videos should be released to the public, why just pick and choose one person to release them to -- and leave it to him to pick and choose which videos he will use and which he will release to the public? Transparency in government doesn't work that way. You don't filter the information through a biased source with a personal agenda. We are now dependant on Carlson as to what footage we will see. Will it be footage that shows the savage nature of the attacks and injuries? Or will Carlson just use the footage beneficial to his own take on what happened? 

   Michael Fanone, an officer who was injured in the riot, predicted the videos will be, "selectively edited to fit an extreme MAGA narrative without care for the safety of Capitol Police, Members of Congress, and Congressional staff."

   Carlson is the most-watched primetime cable news host in America, but he is not a strict journalist. Back in the day when news and opinion were more distinct from each other, he would be referred to as an opinion maker.  

   "If Speaker McCarthy has indeed granted Tucker Carlson -- a Fox host who routinely spreads misinformation and Putin’s poisonous propaganda -- and his producers access to this sensitive footage, he owes the American people an explanation of why he has done so," said the former chair of the Jan. 6 committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss.

   House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., called McCarthy's releasing the videos, “an egregious security breach that endangers the hardworking women and men of the United States Capitol Police.”

   But, some on the other side of the aisle argue it was right to release the videos.  “I think the public should see what happened,” McCarthy said a month ago.

   “There was never any legitimate reason for this footage to remain secret,” Carlson said.

   "Americans deserve to see the truth," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said.

    A final thought (or two): If the sensitive nature of the videos lies in the fact they reveal the positions of the cameras, then move the cameras and add new ones. If the footage reveals "security protocols," are those protocols obvious, anyway? If someone attacks, you defend; what's the secret?

   And, if the videos do contain information vital to protecting America, should not they have been classified? Though he would have access to classified information, McCarthy would then not be authorized to leak information that could impair America's security.

   A Facebook responder to my questions notes, "By having to move (the cameras), they may no longer be placed in the optimal positions." And, says Edward Kinnally, "Some of those videos revealed security stations that the public doesn't normally have access to because they have no business being in that area, and therefore they reveal what might be referred to as 'behind the scenes' security measures." 

   Whether the videos should be made public is hard for those of us in streets to know. We would have to see them to make that judgement. But one thing is clear: allowing Carlson to see them while holding them back from the rest of the public is not making them public. Carlson is not, "the public;" he is just one member of the public.