Contradictory and Foolish

Posted on by
Reply

The lede lays it out, with Valero, California’s major refinery operator, at the center of the contradiction and foolishness.

A refining company proceeding with its plans to idle its gasoline refinery in California announced Tuesday it will help out California consumers by importing gasoline, which will help shore up the state’s dwindling supply.

The refining company is Valero, and it’s being forced to close its refinery by California’s hostile regulatory environment for oil and natural gas production and for gasoline and ICE engine-powered vehicles in particular. The contradiction is Valero’s decision to close its gasoline-producing refinery as no longer economically viable while deciding to import gasoline from outside the State.

The foolishness is Valero’s decision to import gasoline into the State after closing its refinery in the State.

As Tim Stewart, US Oil and Gas Association President, put it as quoted by Just the News,

Governor Newson trumpeting his leadership is like the captain of a sinking ship taking credit for handing out life jackets after he’s crashed the ferry on the rocks. It was the lack of leadership on energy policy that got California to this point….

It’s not entirely Newsom’s fault, though; he had help from his Progressive-Democrat-run State legislature, which passed the laws he signed, and from his regulators, who wrote the implementing regulations.

Much more than that, though, the fault lies with California’s citizens. If those folks really were concerned about their gasoline availability and pricing and their ICE vehicles, they’d stop electing representatives and governors who are overtly hostile to gasoline and local production of gasoline supplies and to ICE vehicles.

Watching in Unanimity

Posted on by
Reply

European leaders are unanimous in their position regarding Iran and that nation’s government abuse of the people over which the mullahs reign.

From Rome to Brussels and from Paris to London, leaders have criticized what the European Union’s foreign policy chief called a “heavy-handed” and “disproportionate” response from Iranian security forces toward protesters.

But….

…European leaders are clearly gauging how much regional uncertainty they can tolerate.

Translation: European managers [sic] are unanimous in their decision to watch the hell out of the mullah’s abuses of the Iranian people. Unfortunately, those same European managers are just as unanimous their being too timid to do anything concrete in opposition to those abuses. As we might say in Texas, those worthies are all hat and no cattle. Unfortunately, though, those worthies don’t even have the hat. Stetsons are made in Texas, not in the haberdasheries of Paris or Milan.

One More Warning?

Posted on by
Reply

General Jack Keane (USA, Ret) thinks President Donald Trump (R) should give the Iranian government one more warning before striking, if we’re going to strike at all.

“The president has told them, ‘If you kill them, I’m coming for you,'” Keane said during an appearance on Life, Liberty & Levin on Saturday.
“They’ve already killed more than 40 people, and they’ve jailed many more. And in jail, they will execute them.”
…
“I think the president could give one more warning and then take down some of the leaders responsible for conducting violence against the Iranian population[.]”

No. One warning is enough, they heard him that first time, and they’ve already answered him. No more warnings, no more talking. It’s time to act, and more forcefully than merely taking down some of the leaders. There needs to be no teeth and claws left for their follow-ons to use.

An Executive Order Worthy of the Name

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) issued an Executive Order—actually, it’s a MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES—that follows up on his EO 14199 (Withdrawing the United States from and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations) which he issued last February.

The current order puts into effect many of the withdrawal recommendations which SecState Marco Rubio reported out to him. The length of the list is an…impressive…list of Woke and otherwise Leftist froo-froo.

It’s good riddance, and we’ll save quite few of our tax dollars.

Non-United Nations Organizations:

(i)       24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact;

(ii)      Colombo Plan Council;

(iii)     Commission for Environmental Cooperation;

(iv)      Education Cannot Wait;

(v)       European Centre of Excellence for Countering

(vi)      Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories;

(vii)     Freedom Online Coalition;

(viii)    Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund;

(ix)      Global Counterterrorism Forum;

(x)       Global Forum on Cyber Expertise;

(xi)      Global Forum on Migration and Development;

(xii)     Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research;

(xiii)    Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development;

(xiv)     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;

(xv)      Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services;

(xvi)     International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property;

(xvii)    International Cotton Advisory Committee;

(xviii)   International Development Law Organization;

(xix)     International Energy Forum;

(xx)      International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies;

(xxi)     International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance;

(xxii)    International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law;

(xxiii)   International Lead and Zinc Study Group;

(xxiv)    International Renewable Energy Agency;

(xxv)     International Solar Alliance;

(xxvi)    International Tropical Timber Organization;

(xxvii)   International Union for Conservation of Nature;

(xxviii)  Pan American Institute of Geography and History;

(xxix)    Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation;

(xxx)     Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combatting Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia;

(xxxi)    Regional Cooperation Council;

(xxxii)   Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century;

(xxxiii)  Science and Technology Center in Ukraine;

(xxxiv)   Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme; and

(xxxv)    Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.

United Nations (UN) Organizations:

(i) Department of Economic and Social Affairs;

(ii) UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) — Economic Commission for Africa;

(iii) ECOSOC — Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean;

(iv) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific;

(v) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia;

(vi) International Law Commission;

(vii) International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals;

(viii) International Trade Centre;

(ix) Office of the Special Adviser on Africa;

(x) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children in Armed Conflict;

(xi) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict;

(xii) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children;

(xiii) Peacebuilding Commission;

(xiv) Peacebuilding Fund;

(xv) Permanent Forum on People of African Descent;

(xvi) UN Alliance of Civilizations;

(xvii) UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries;

(xviii) UN Conference on Trade and Development;

(xix) UN Democracy Fund;

(xx) UN Energy;

(xxi) UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women;

(xxii) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change;

(xxiii) UN Human Settlements Programme;

(xxiv) UN Institute for Training and Research;

(xxv) UN Oceans;

(xxvi) UN Population Fund;

(xxvii) UN Register of Conventional Arms;

(xxviii) UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination;

(xxix) UN System Staff College;

(xxx) UN Water; and

(xxxi) UN University.

 H/t Grim’s Hall

Nuclear Power and Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

Both Republican politicians support, and Progressive-Democrat politicians profess support, for nuclear power as a major source of energy for our economy. Progressive-Democrats, though, seems superficial. Here, for instance is Congressman Frank Pallone (D, NJ):

I’ve been supportive of [nuclear], and we’ve been supportive of it as Democrats mostly on a bipartisan basis, but all that is linked to safety. If anything happens that gives the impression or actually makes it so that people’s lives are at risk, or we have some kind of incident, that’s going to be the end of it. I’ll speak for myself but I won’t be able to support it anymore.

Safety matters in nuclear power, just as it does in handling electricity, natural gas, gasoline—and driving down the street and grilling on the patio. There have been three major incidents involving nuclear power. They were Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

The Three Mile Island incident involved a partial meltdown stemming from a stuck valve resulting in loss of coolant to the reactor and operators failing to recognize the fact of the loss of coolant soon enough. Despite those failures, the reactor’s overall design prevented further damage, and radiation release was minimal—generally equivalent to the amount a patient receives during a chest X-ray—and there were no fatalities.

The Chernobyl incident resulted in several immediate casualties and a number of follow-on casualties, and it was the result of serious operator error and poor design. The incident occurred during a test of power-out shutdown procedures that was carried out despite an existing serious power drop during ongoing operations. The design failure was demonstrated by the attempt to shut down the reactor during those conditions resulting in a large power surge that the system could not handle.

The Fukushima incident was driven by a well-offshore earthquake followed by a tsunami, and it had a reactor meltdown, which would seem an especially dangerous and lethal failure. However, the reactor was designed and built to handle all of that but the tsunami, which flooding caused loss of power, leading to the meltdown. By design, the meltdown was contained. Radiation release was extremely limited, and the fatalities ensuing consisted of hospitalized patients and nursing home resident elderly who died while being evacuated due to failures of the evacuation process. No fatalities from the reactor failure occurred.

Nuclear power is safe, when the designs are sound and, especially, when construction and subsequent operation are carried out carefully and in accordance with specifications. When those factors are met, nuclear power compares very favorably with the fatality rates from driving an automobile or truck, from flying commercial, and from riding the train. They compare favorably with the fatality rate inflicted on birds by windmills, and with the loss of habitat from building solar farms.

Pallone surely knows this, which makes his “support” very much a superficial position.

It’s time the naysayers—and not only some Progressive-Democrat pretenders—to get out of the way. Nuclear power is much greener than wind or solar, and it is much steadier and more reliable at generating electricity.