- With a headline “Almost half of U.S. electric car owners want to switch back to gas-powered cars, survey shows” it wasn’t a good week for EVs even before “A fire likely sparked by exploding lithium batteries swept through a manufacturing factory near South Korea’s capital on Monday, killing 22 mostly Chinese migrant workers and injuring eight, officials said.” Which the New York Times headlined “Deadly Fire Exposes Harsh Conditions Migrant Workers Face in South Korea” which may well be true but it also seemed to some to expose the tendency of EV batteries to explode causing deadly fires.
- With impeccable timing, National Geographic emails “Stonehenge: A mystery more popular than ever” and “The mysterious megalith was built by a vanished people without a written language”. Indeed. Or as Spinal Tap put it, “No one knows who they were or what they were doing”. Which arguably could also be said of the activists who tried to turn it orange, not in tribute to Donald Trump but because um climate aaaah we are all going to die or something. Plus as Stonehenge U.K. pointed out, in urging a prison sentence, “There are also multiple rare lichen species growing on the stones that are also protected.” It’s that “environment” you keep hearing about.
- Here at CDN we have offered a rival version of the alarmists’ famous cherry-picked “stripes” graphic, showing what happens if you start at different points than the tendentious Little Ice Age 1850. But in the ecumenical spirit we’d also like to point to Ron Davidson’s take, which again uses various different starting points and also a wider range of hues to show the enormous natural changes and the fact that modern conditions are unusually cool not unusually warm. He offers considerable commentary as well, and many other features. So enjoy his colourful trip through Earth’s climate past.
- From the “fake news” file, courtesy of Blacklock’s Reporter, we learn that the much-touted Canadian government program to plant two billion trees to change the weather, already silly in a nation with 300 billion of the things tossing saplings hither and yon, was fake anyway. An internal Department of Natural Resources memo explains that “‘Two billion trees’ was picked as an inspirational slogan and should not be taken literally, it said.” And “The government sought a name that would inspire that commitment and participation. So far that has worked.” Yeah, “worked” except in the sense of actually working. “Tree planting requires careful planning to ensure the right tree is planted in the right place at the right time for the right reasons.” Whereas slogans just sprout like mushrooms after rain.
- Well boo hoo to you too. The VP of the former Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which had to be folded into a slightly less absurd government entity after nearly two hundred conflicts of interest totaling some $319 million dollars surfaced, said the agency “has been seen as a great success.” Then on being lobbed a softball about “Conservative messaging of such programs being referred to as the ‘green slush fund’ or whatever it is” she whimpered “It is difficult for Sustainable Development Technology Canada and its employees to hear that type of messaging delivered”. And what the heck. It’s just other people’s money, and citizens don’t feel any pain when you talk of it as something available in unlimited quantities to toss around like confetti.
- So you admit it: Canary Media unaccountably emails patronizingly that “It wasn’t long ago that a purported push to ban gas stove was the culture war issue. The government was going to rip your six-burner Viking range from the wall and replace it with a dinky little hot plate. At least, that’s what Fox News said.” All to pitch a news item about how “A growing body of research documenting air pollution exposure from gas stoves has spurred efforts to regulate or even ban the appliances. Now consumer advocates and state lawmakers across the country are trying a new tack: forcing companies to put warning labels on gas stoves.” Aka Fox was right.
- From the government and here to poison you sanctimoniously: Canada’s Environment Minister just banned compact fluorescent bulbs starting Dec. 31, 2025 by regulatory fiat because “It is crucial that we continue to protect the health of Canadians”. Say, didn’t the Canadian government force them on us only two decades ago and misinform us “Are compact fluorescent bulbs safe? Yes! They have a minute amount of mercury. If they break they do not pose a health risk.” Why yes, to cheers from world-famous-in-Canada environmentalist David Suzuki. Then tell us is one broke “Remove people and pets from the room. Ventilate the room for 15 minutes prior to starting clean-up. Wear disposable gloves. Do not use a vacuum to clean up the initial breakage as it will spread the mercury vapour and dust.” But don’t worry. There probably aren’t more than about 100 million of them in the country. So what are you forcing on us next in the name of the environment? Flammable EVs? Energy poverty? Yes! All perfectly safe, we assure you.
See Comments 
Tidbits
03 Jul 2024 | News Roundup
Not so long ago we were being warned that CFLs emitted ultraviolet radiation, not a healthy thing for sure, and to not use it as a reading light unless your head was at least 12 inches away from the bulb.
The media seems to have ignored that, since the mostly-leftist governments were forcing them on us.
Perhaps the most toxic environmental contamination is excessive government. I've often wondered if entire nanny-state departments were to be shut down overnight, would anyone notice?
CFLs (and EVs): Just more examples of The Law of Unintended Consequences (like 'climate policy' in general).
I skipped the CFLs completely in anticipation of affordable and well-functioning LEDs because I simply couldn't see well enough in the CFL's awful, narrow-band light and they took an annoyingly long time to provide any light at all when switched on. I has stocked up well enough with incandescent bulbs - I still have a few to spare that I use for comparing with and selecting the LEDs that best suit my eyes.
I switched to CFLs because they use less electricity and so lowered my electric bill. Now I'm switching over to LEDs because they use even less power than CFLs. Reckon what they'll want us to switch to next. BTW according to the electric utility we us ~40% of the average in our area. I turn off lights RELIGIOUSLY!
Hated CFL's from Day One.Ugly,"dirty" delayed light coming on,and then the contamination issues that the pointy heads either ignored or just didn't care about.Glad I never bought a single CFL.Usually not more than two or three 60-watter lights on in my house anyway,so elec. costs not an issue.
If they would foist toxic lightbulbs on us during an imagined "climate emergency," why wouldn't they foist toxic jabs on us during an imagined "pandemic"? No hindsight required: each was equally obviously wrong at the time they were initiated. The cure is always worse than the disease with government.
Rodger Graves, I can guarantee no one would notice. Look at US Government . And I am just saying : USA has been governed by Trump for 4 years, was doing well, not starting wars or end of the world.
He lost and Biden came in, if Biden didn't have media protection he would have been declared incompetent after 2 years.
Now according to whatever party you believe, that country has been run by two most useless people. Yet current economic statements show that things are ok . Not great but ok. How important are these "persons"