Utopia, you are standing in it!

Cultists couldn’t care less about the environmental destruction that both wind and solar leave in their wake, merrily ignoring the thousands of wind turbine blades and millions solar panels already being dumped in landfills. Apparently, their mountainous toxic waste legacy will be something for future generations to deal with.

The same characters vilify fossil fuels of all descriptions, with particular fury reserved for coal – the black stuff that literally dragged us out of the Dark Ages.

Precisely what the world would do without coal, oil and gas remains a mystery.

In the ‘all or nothing’ worldview espoused by eco-religionists there is no room for reason or logic, when it comes to measuring the relative costs and benefits of any course of action.

When it comes to net environmental benefits, as Gregory Wrightstone explains below, on a pound-for-pound basis, fossil fuels win hands down.

Fossil Fuels Are the Greenest of…

The wind power cult have no difficulty in justifying the destruction of pristine landscapes; the dismemberment of once cohesive, rural communities; the creation of toxic waste lands in China (where the rare earths essential to wind turbines are processed); crushing power prices that punish the poorest and most vulnerable in society; and barely shrug at the slaughter of millions upon millions of birds and bats, across the globe.

The usual approach by wind power outfits is to get the state to sanction their inevitable bird and bat slaughter.

In the US, their licenses to kill rare and endangered Eagles are euphemistically called “take permits”. As if the holder of the licence was organising a payment-free collection of something from the corner store.

In Victoria, Australia, an outfit owned by the New Zealand government, Tilt Renewables has been challenged about the morality of wiping out rare and endangered…

Writing about the “work” of the Queen in 1958, the journalist and Herald Dermot Morrah claimed there had been “scarcely any allusion” in her coronation ceremony to the fact that Elizabeth II “was Queen of seven distinct and sovereign realms”. Indeed, added Morrah, “she was crowned not even as Queen of the United Kingdom, but of England alone”.

This was a peculiarly Anglo-centric take, particularly so coming from the pen of a Herald, usually such sticklers for detail. At first glance, the coronation of a British monarch is indeed a very English affair. It takes place at the Abbey Church of Westminster and the service is given by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Yet a closer examination of coronations between 1714 and 1953 reveals them to be constitutional mirrors in which were reflected changes to the territorial constitution. And by highlighting these reflections, one can draw some preliminary observations as to…

Yesterday Jeremy pointed out that while the 2021 economics Nobelists have reached various conclusions in their study of labor economics, the prize was really awarded to the methods they developed and used.

I find the best explanation of the value of these methods to be this 2010 article by Angrist and Pischke in the Journal of Economic Perspectives: The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design Is Taking the Con out of Econometrics

Like Jeremy, they think that empirical economic research (that is, research using econometrics) was most quite bad up to the 1980’s; as Ed Leamer put it in his paper “Let’s take the CON out of Econometrics”:

This is a sad and decidedly unscientific state of affairs we find ourselves in. Hardly anyone takes data analyses seriously. Or perhaps more accurately, hardly anyone takes anyone else’s data analyses seriously.

Angrist and Pischke argue that the field…

Last night the major party candidates for Senate in Pennsylvania had their first and only debate. I didn’t watch it, since I don’t live in Pennsylvania. But judging by my Twitter feed, a lot of people did watch it, including (bizarrely to me) lots of people who don’t live in Pennsylvania. And overnight, tons of articles were written analyzing the debate, saying who “won” the debate, and so on (“5 Things You Need to Know About the Pennsylvania Senate Debate” etc.).

But this blog post is the only thing you need to read about that debate. And these charts are really all you need to look at.

These two charts come from the prediction market website PredictIt. The charts show the “odds” (more on that below) that each candidate will win the Pennsylvania Senate race, over a 90-day time horizon (first chart) and the last 24 hours (second chart)…

Fracking: note the deep shaft
The people doing the banning conveniently forget they can’t enough gas at the moment, including from the US obtained by the method they profess not to like. But importing fracked gas is no problem, essential even.
– – –
The ban on fracking in England will be reinstated, new Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said.

It reverses a decision by his predecessor Liz Truss, says BBC News.

Fracking was first halted in England in 2019, amid opposition from green groups and concerns about earth tremors.

What is fracking?

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a technique for recovering gas and oil from shale rock.

It involves drilling into the earth and directing a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals at a rock layer, to release the gas inside.

Wells can be drilled vertically or horizontally in order to release the gas.
. . .