One of the signs spotted in the anti-Semitic mob at NYU on Monday read “Capitalism Is Deadly.” Such a placard taking one side in an ethno-religious dispute over land strikes as a non sequitur (as does‚ perhaps‚ the intense interest here over a dispute so far away). The context of history shows that the linkage of these two seemingly disparate categories of ethno-religious‚ on the one hand‚ and economic ideology‚ on the other‚ though it may come across as out of place‚ occurs as anything but unusual. Demagogues over the decades use class resentments to stoke anti-Semitism and the seductive power of socialism to peg Jews as the bourgeoisie holding down the proletariat. One need not operate as a modern-day Herodotus to deduce when in modern history did a movement meld anti-capitalism with anti-Semitism to gin up torch-bearing mobs as we saw Monday evening on cable news. This ideological/ethno-religious alchemy results in a fool’s gold in which Jews morph from people into dehumanized villains deserving of whatever provides catharsis to the angry mob. While invoking the imagery of yellow stars‚ gas chambers‚ and concentration camps falls on the side of hyperbole‚ one need not appeal to 80 or so years ago‚ but rather to seven or so months ago when Hamas slaughtered unarmed civilians to illustrate that ideas have consequences. Allowing bad ideas to go unchallenged‚ as sensible people have done on the campuses for decades‚ clearly unleashes consequences as well. This ethno-religious/ideological combination seduced as far-left a figure as W. E. B. Du Bois when he traveled to Germany in 1936. Ten years earlier‚ Du Bois went to the Soviet Union on a junket paid for‚ he suspected‚ by agents of the Kremlin. “I stand in astonishment and wonder at the revelation of Russia that has come to me‚” proclaimed Du Bois upon his visit to “Holy Moscow” in 1926. “I may be partially deceived and half-informed. But if what I have seen with my eyes and heard with my ears in Russia is Bolshevism‚ I am a Bolshevik.” Russia remained his true love. Ideological tourism in Hitler’s Germany nevertheless inspired similar half-baked proclamations. In “The German Case Against Jews‚” Du Bois ostensibly condemned anti-Semitism as he engaged in it. He wrote this article after he attended the Berlin Olympiad and characterized the German reaction to Jews as a “reasoned prejudice” based on “economic fear.” He relayed that Jews controlled the stock exchange‚ the legal profession‚ and business. He described National Socialism as bringing about “a nation at work‚ after a nightmare of unemployment; and the results of this work are shown not simply by profits‚ but by houses for the poor; new roads; an end of strikes and labor troubles; widespread industrial and unemployment insurance; the guarding of public and private health; great celebrations‚ organizations for old and young‚ new songs‚ new ideals‚ a new state‚ a new race.” Anti-Semitism manifests in various guises. The appeal to Du Bois then mirrors the appeal to the campus denizens now. This anti-Semitism relies most heavily neither on blood nor faith but the pseudo-intellectual idea that Jews fall into the oppressor class in the ideological obsession with hierarchies — economic‚ global‚ and otherwise. This tic owes to socialism‚ particularly of the Marxist variety and not‚ say‚ from Owenites or Noyesian Bible Communists — neither of which wished to kill their skeptics but instead to make house with them for the former and to make love to them for the latter. The mob chanting‚ “It is right to rebel/NYPD‚ burn in hell&;#33;” near Columbia‚ and something other than “Boola‚ Boola” at Yale‚ gives hearers the sense that‚ provided the choice to kibbutz‚ copulate‚ or kill‚ many demonstrating would not pick A or B. Of course‚ these discontents (like their heroes in Gaza) hold little power to effectuate the dystopian future they regard as utopian. They attend such institutions as Columbia‚ Yale‚ Harvard‚ MIT‚ the University of Michigan‚ and NYU. How long until they naturally ascend‚ as past graduates of their schools did‚ to power&;#63; On this and much else‚ our universities are a time bomb. READ MORE: It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like 1938 Columbia University Turmoil Recalls the Hitler Youth You Are Paying the Radicalization Machine The post The Campuses Are a Time Bomb Ticking on America appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I think it’s time for a little trip down memory lane‚ don’t you&;#63; The date was August 14‚ 2017‚ and Donald Trump was holding a press conference a couple of days after a civil disturbance in Charlottesville‚ Virginia‚ had turned deadly. In Charlottesville‚ the local Hard Left-dominated city council had opted to defenestrate a historical landmark‚ that being a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee in a prominent place in town. A protest was planned and permitted for those critics of tearing the statue down to express their opinion‚ and attaching themselves to that protest was a group of alt-right agitators who held a tiki torch parade through Charlottesville the night before. Counterprotestors‚ including Antifa and Black Lives Matter agitators‚ then turned the demonstration over the Lee statue into a melee‚ and one of the alt-right “neo-Nazis” ended up running over a leftist demonstrator in a car. Charlottesville was thus elevated just below the status of 9/11 in the mainstream media lexicon‚ and Trump was battered for waiting two days before making a statement. Trump defended himself by saying he wanted to know and understand all the facts around Charlottesville before he weighed in. Then there was this exchange at the press conference: Trump: Okay‚ what about the alt-left that came charging at [indiscernible] – excuse me – what about the alt-left that came charging at the‚ as you say‚ the alt right&;#63; Do they have any semblance of guilt&;#63; What about this&;#63; What about the fact that they came charging – they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging clubs&;#63; Do they have any problem&;#63; I think they do. As far as I’m concerned‚ that was a horrible‚ horrible day. Wait a minute‚ I’m not finished. I’m not finished‚ fake news. That was a horrible day. I will tell you something. I watched those very closely‚ much more closely than you people watched it. And you had‚ you had a group on one side that was bad. And you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that‚ but I’ll say it right now. You had a group – you had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit‚ and they were very‚ very violent. Q: Do you think what you call the alt left is the same as neo-Nazis&;#63; Trump: Those people – all of those people‚ excuse me – I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups‚ but not all of those people were neo-Nazis‚ believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there‚ because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue Robert E. Lee. So – excuse me – and you take a look at some of the groups and you see‚ and you’d know it if you were honest reporters‚ which in many cases you’re not. Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. So this week‚ it’s Robert E. Lee‚ I noticed that Stonewall Jackson’s coming down. I wonder‚ is it George Washington next week&;#63; And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after. You know‚ you really do have to ask yourself‚ where does it stop&;#63; But‚ they were there to protest – excuse me – you take a look the night before‚ they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Infrastructure question. Go ahead. Q: Does the statue of Robert E. Lee stay up&;#63; Trump: I would say that’s up to a local town‚ community or the federal government‚ depending on where it is located. Q: On race relations in America‚ do you think things have gotten worse or better since you took office with regard to race relationships&;#63; I think they’ve gotten better or the same – look – they have been frayed for a long time‚ and you can ask President Obama about that‚ because he’d make speeches about it. I believe that the fact that I brought in‚ it will be soon‚ millions of jobs‚ you see where companies are moving back into our country. I think that’s going to have a tremendous positive impact on race relations. We have companies coming back into our country. We have two car companies that just announced. We have Foxconn in Wisconsin just announced. We have many companies‚ I’d say‚ pouring back into the country. I think that’s going to have a huge‚ positive impact on race relations. You know why&;#63; It is jobs. What people want now‚ they want jobs. They want great jobs with good pay. And when they have that‚ you watch how race relations will be. And I’ll tell you‚ we’re spending a lot of money on the inner cities – we are fixing the inner cities – we are doing far more than anybody has done with respect to the inner cities. It is a priority for me‚ and it’s very important. Q: Mr. President‚ are you putting what you are calling the alt–left and white supremacists on the same moral plane&;#63; Trump: I am not putting anybody on a moral plane‚ what I’m saying is this: you had a group on one side and a group on the other‚ and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch‚ but there is another side. There was a group on this side‚ you can call them the left. You’ve just called them the left‚ that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want‚ but that’s the way it is. Q: You said there was hatred and violence on both sides&;#63; I do think there is blame – yes‚ I think there is blame on both sides. You look at‚ you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides‚ and I have no doubt about it‚ and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And‚ and‚ and‚ and if you reported it accurately‚ you would say. Excuse me‚ they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis‚ and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me‚ excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down‚ of to them‚ a very‚ very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. Q: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same. Oh no‚ George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner&;#63; So will George Washington now lose his status&;#63; Are we going to take down – excuse me. Are we going to take down‚ are we going to take down statues to George Washington&;#63; How about Thomas Jefferson&;#63; What do you think of Thomas Jefferson&;#63; You like him&;#63; Okay‚ good. Are we going to take down his statue&;#63; He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue&;#63; You know what&;#63; It’s fine‚ you’re changing history‚ you’re changing culture‚ and you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists‚ because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists‚ okay&;#63; And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now‚ in the other group also‚ you had some fine people‚ but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too. From that‚ Trump was excoriated for saying that the neo-Nazis were fine people. It was an utter and complete lie‚ essentially a blood libel. Trump condemned the neo-Nazis and defended traditional America‚ the people who object to tearing down historical landmarks over stupid woke pieties that were only just beginning to tear America apart as they’ve nearly completely done now. The false narratives around Trump’s Charlottesville press conference were preserved and burnished throughout his presidency in order to paint him as a racist. It didn’t really work‚ as Trump ended up with a higher percentage of the black vote in 2020 than he had in 2016. Of course‚ Trump suffered from a worse performance among white women who were the real target of the Charlottesville allegations; as a “racist‚” he was thus unpalatable to those “persuadable” voters and paid a price when he ran for reelection. But what price will Joe Biden pay for his own “both sides” statement&;#63; He said this Monday when asked about the anti-Semitic protests: “I condemn the anti-Semitic protests‚ that’s why I’ve set up a program to deal with that. I also condemn those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians‚ and how they’re being…” &;quot;I condemn the antisemitic protests‚ that's why I set up a program to deal with that.&;quot; Million dollar question is whether Biden's just referring to his National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism from eons ago‚ or something else we haven't heard about.pic.twitter.com/vRjLWKLBTu — Branko Marcetic (@BMarchetich) April 22‚ 2024 I just showed you the transcript of what Trump said back in 2017‚ which makes it quite clear that he was delineating a difference between citizens with a mainstream point of view and the agitators who caused all the trouble. How is this not unmistakably worse&;#63; There are rioters on college campuses all over America‚ most notably perhaps at Columbia and NYU‚ demonstrating on behalf of a terrorist organization‚ Hamas‚ that started a war by killing more than 1‚200 Israelis on Oct. 7 of last year and taking well more than 200 hostages‚ almost all of whom they’ve since killed. Israel’s response to Oct. 7 was to invade Gaza‚ from which the attack began‚ and eradicate Hamas. Hamas is attempting to hide within the civilian population of Gaza. Which is nothing new. In fact‚ it is standard operating procedure for Hamas. Hiding among a civilian population‚ for the purpose of using civilians as human shields‚ is universally recognized as a war crime. Israel has spent decades absorbing attacks by Hamas and related jihadist terror groups based in the Arab areas surrounding Israeli territory‚ almost all of which use indiscriminate attacks (in the ubiquitous cases of rocket attacks) or directly target civilians. Now‚ after the worst outbreak of those attacks resulting in the highest casualty count of Jews since the Nazi atrocities of the Holocaust‚ the Israelis have recognized that it’s no longer possible to attempt to coexist with these people and that Hamas must be eliminated from the equation. No serious person fails to recognize the necessity for Israel to do this. There can be no coexistence between Israel and Hamas‚ and Israel is not the reason why. Hamas has controlled Gaza for decades‚ and‚ in that time‚ billions of dollars in aid money have poured in‚ and those resources have been spent on guns‚ bullets‚ rockets‚ and a maze of terror tunnels to facilitate attacks on Israeli civilians. As for Palestinian civilians‚ they overwhelmingly support not just Hamas‚ but the overall mission of killing so many Jews that the rest either leave what is now Israel — so that Arab Muslims can have the region for themselves — or accept dhimmitude — a semi-slavery second-class citizenship status prescribed in Sharia law for non-Muslims. A while back here at The American Spectator‚ Dov Fischer correctly noted that‚ in their attitudes‚ the “civilians” of Gaza are significantly less blameless than were those of Germany during World War II. No one expressed much approbation then‚ nor since‚ over the firebombing of German cities like Dresden as a means of breaking the Germans’ will to continue fighting‚ and ultimately‚ German civilians were happy to be conquered by Americans and British — if only because the alternative was to be brutalized and raped by the Soviet troops coming from the other direction. The Israelis are killing fewer Palestinian civilians as a ratio of the combat fatalities they’re inflicting than we did in World War II‚ Korea‚ Vietnam‚ Iraq‚ or Afghanistan. Some of that is the changing and more surgical nature of war‚ and some of it is Israel’s attempt not to do exactly what they’re being accused of doing — which is inflicting “genocide” on the Palestinians. But Joe Biden just told you that he “condemns” you if you recognize the truths outlined above. He says that if you “don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians‚” that you’re on the same plane with the rioters spouting real “From the river to the sea&;#33;” genocidal rhetoric on those campuses and elsewhere. Unforgivable. And from an American president. For the sole purpose of pandering to the vote of sniveling‚ overprotected‚ indoctrinated little monsters on college campuses and the Arab vote in Michigan. It’s a damned shame we don’t have an honest media in this country. If we had one‚ they would eviscerate Biden infinitely worse than what Trump received after Charlottesville. READ MORE: It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like 1938 Columbia University Turmoil Recalls the Hitler Youth You Are Paying the Radicalization Machine The post I’ll See Your Charlottesville and Raise You Columbia appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Locker rooms and bathrooms at schools that accept public funding are about to become dangerous places for women — even in states that have the kind of commonsense legislation intended to keep women’s private spaces private. Last week‚ the Biden administration released a host of changes to Title IX‚ the federal legislation that is best known for dictating equal treatment of men and women in sports and for governing the way schools handle sexual assault charges. While the administration hasn’t yet decided whether biological men who identify as female should be allowed to compete in women’s sports‚ it redefined “sex” as “gender identity” in almost every other context while simultaneously allowing schools to violate the due process rights of students accused of sexual assault. So Much for State Law Practically speaking‚ the changes‚ which will take effect on Aug. 1‚ will mean that teachers can be accused of discrimination for “misgendering” students‚ and that schools will have to allow biological men who identify as females to use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms — even in states that have passed legislation protecting women’s private spaces. One senior administration official said that the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights will be able to investigate cases of alleged discrimination by the schools‚ even if those schools were in compliance with state law. (READ MORE: Harvard Makes a Sane Decision. Is This a Sign of DEI Backlash&;#63;) Additionally‚ convicting a student for sexual assault will be far easier next school year. Under the Trump administration‚ a student accused of sexual assault (or his lawyer) could cross-examine witnesses and their accuser‚ and schools had to meet a standard of “clear and convincing evidence” before they convicted him or her. While the Biden administration doesn’t prohibit schools from employing the more rigorous standards of the Trump administration‚ it doesn’t require schools to meet the same high standards. Beginning in August‚ when students are accused of sexual assault‚ they won’t have a right to cross-examine their accuser or witnesses (a violation of their due process rights)‚ and schools are directed to use the much lower standard of a “preponderance of evidence” to convict them. “This regulation … seeks to u-turn to the bad old days where sexual misconduct was sent to campus kangaroo courts‚ not resolved in a way that actually sought justice‚” former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos said in a statement on X. “It restores the so-called ‘single investigator’ model‚ where the same campus #DEI bureaucrat is the detective‚ prosecutor‚ judge‚ jury and executioner.” Title IX Changes Threaten Women The revisions‚ which span 1‚577 pages‚ massively expand the scope of what will be considered “discrimination” under Title IX. According to one summary‚ sex discrimination now includes any discrimination “based on sex stereotypes‚ sex characteristics‚ pregnancy or related conditions‚ sexual orientation‚ and gender identity.” As Riley Gaines pointed out on X‚ the new rewrite effectively means that biological males can now compete for women’s athletic and academic scholarships‚ use women’s bathrooms‚ share dorm rooms with women‚ and dictate the pronouns students and faculty use for them — they just need to identify as women. The Biden Admin has just officially abolished Title IX as we knew it. Now‚ sex = gender identity. In a nutshell‚ the new rewrite means:– men can take academic AND athletic scholarships from women – men will have FULL access to bathrooms‚ locker rooms‚ etc– men could be… pic.twitter.com/JfQVI9Yfph — Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) April 19‚ 2024 “This regulation is an assault on women and girls‚” DeVos wrote on X. “It makes it a federal requirement that feelings‚ not facts‚ dictate how Title IX is enforced.” While the Biden administration hasn’t explicitly forced colleges and schools to allow biological men who identify as transgender to compete on women’s sports — something 25 states have banned and most Americans oppose — the Washington Post reported that those changes are in the works (after the 2024 election cycle‚ of course)‚ and it’s not hard to guess where the administration will fall on the issue. After all‚ if sex discrimination includes gender identity‚ then preventing a man who identifies as a woman from competing in a woman’s volleyball tournament is discrimination. These kinds of changes to Title IX put many states and educational institutions (both universities and public schools) in an awkward position. State laws and regulations may require schools to keep men out of women’s bathrooms and locker rooms‚ but complying with the state law would require violating Title IX‚ which could ultimately mean those schools are barred from receiving federal funds. That may have unintended beneficial consequences (we should be rethinking the billions of taxpayer dollars winding their way into woke schools)‚ but it’s hardly a healthy political strategy for a country. (RELATED: You Are Paying the Radicalization Machine) The Biden administration’s changes to Title IX will doubtlessly face legal challenges moving forward. May Mailman‚ the director of the Independent Women’s Law Center‚ announced that the group already has plans to sue the Biden administration. “The unlawful omnibus regulations reimagines Title IX to permit the invasion of women’s spaces and the reduction of women’s rights in the name of elevating protections for ‘gender identity‚’ which is contrary to the text and purpose of Title IX‚” she said in a statement. Meanwhile‚ Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Rachel Rouleau said in a statement that “[ADF] plans to take action to defend female athletes‚ as well as school districts‚ teachers‚ and students who will be gravely harmed by this unlawful government overreach.” (READ MORE: Defund NPR Yesterday) The need for those kinds of legal actions will quickly become apparent as women feel increasingly threatened‚ not just on the athletic field‚ but even in their most intimate spaces. The post Biden’s Title IX Revisions Aren’t Good News for Women appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

“I think that I shall never see‚ a poem as lovely as a tree.”  Everyone loves trees. When one grew in Brooklyn‚ it merited a whole book. (Sorta.) Which is part of the appeal of planting trees to reduce ambient carbon dioxide even for those who don’t buy into any aspect of global warming. Hitler sent out youth to plant trees under the Nazi Reichsnaturschutzgesetz (Reich Conservation Act); so add that to his love of dogs and loathing of smoking. But Bill Gates is apparently below Hitler‚ at least for limited purposes. While very much a believer in anthropocentric global warming‚ he recently outraged the masses when he declared onstage at a New York Times climate summit‚ “I don’t plant trees.” He added that it was “complete nonsense” to think that tree planting could solve climate change. “Are we the science people or are we the idiots&;#63;” Gad&;#33; No wonder Melinda left him&;#33; Except he’s right; we are idiots. Collectively speaking. It appears that no level of practicable planting can impact the alleged warming that’s been predicted; the planting isn’t contributing to biodiversity; trees release some or all sequestered carbon if harvested; and while some trees are vastly superior for absorbing carbon dioxide‚ nobody is paying attention to that. Oh‚ and finally‚ forest lands are continuing to shrink. The UN‚ former President Trump‚ and hundreds of companies have supported a campaign to plant a trillion trees. Former Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was a big booster. The Biden administration has allocated $1 billion for tree-planting projects‚ but‚ in doing so‚ cited numerous very real advantages of trees. Fair enough. Certainly‚ as a form of geoengineering‚ tree planting would be cheaper than installing the equivalent of giant catalytic converters to suck carbon dioxide from the air‚ and even point source sequestration such as at coal-fired power plants is a scam for rent seekers and politicians‚ as I’ve written elsewhere.  Overall‚ those trillion trees would “require over 2 billion acres‚ which is to say over 2 billion football fields—greater than the total land area of the contiguous United States‚” according to Climate Interactive modelers in a collaboration with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology called En-ROADS. Those trillion might prevent only 0.15 degrees Celsius (0.27 Fahrenheit) of warming by 2100‚ they calculate.  “Even if you could plant a trillion trees—which would never happen‚ it’s more realistic to say maybe a tenth of that—the trees will only remove 6% of what’s needed to be removed by 2050‚” says Andrew Jones‚ executive director of the D.C.-based group. (And remember there are other alleged greenhouse gases that trees cannot sequester). Their model has prompted criticism‚ but it’s not particularly compelling. Sean DeWitt‚ director of the Global Restoration Initiative at the nonprofit World Resources Institute‚ told Fast Company that “more land is available for planting than the model assumes‚ because the biggest opportunity to add trees is on existing farms.” (Quoting the publication‚ not necessarily DeWitt.) Um‚ yeah. That’s called replacement‚ which nobody argues against. It doesn’t negate the model. We need new acreage. But where&;#63; Not cropland. True‚ technology has allowed three times as much crop growing and grazing on a given area of land since 1960. But a growing world population and increasing demand for meat will increase the need for cropland. Indeed‚ a 2022 study in Nature Food found expansion of such land has been accelerating‚ with an increase of 250 million acres since 2000. We can’t plant trees in permanently snow-covered areas in Alaska‚ Canada‚ the Nordic countries‚ and Russia. The dark forests would absorb more heat than the white snow did and thus “have a warming effect that exceeds the cooling effect of reducing [greenhouse gases]‚” as the National Academy of Sciences explained in 2019. Nor should we plant them “in natural grassland and savanna ecosystems‚” as C&;eacute;sar Terrer‚ the lead author of a 2021 Nature study‚ explained: “Our results suggest these grassy ecosystems with very few trees are also important for storing carbon in soil.” We shouldn’t plant them in wildfire-prone areas‚ which some say are expanding due to climate change. Finally‚ most of the supposedly empty‚ unclaimed land targeted for tree planting is actually claimed and used by indigenous peoples and local communities. They need to be compensated‚ assuming they will negotiate at all. Assuming they have anyone to negotiate for them. “For all these reasons‚ the United States will not be planting anything close to 1 trillion trees‚ nor will the world‚” says Climate Interactive. Ultimately‚ tree planting doesn’t fit the “every little bit helps” category. It’s like shooting a slingshot at Godzilla‚ whom we know from the movies can’t be destroyed even by Japan’s might army and air force. Godzilla‚ or global warming as it were‚ won’t slow by a single pace. To a great extent‚ the trillion tree tumult can be traced back to one person‚ ecologist and Welshman Thomas Crowther‚ former chief scientific adviser for the United Nations’ Trillion Trees Campaign.  He now allegedly regrets the role he played‚ as he discussed in a Wired article last December. “Stop Planting Trees‚ Says Guy Who Inspired World to Plant a Trillion Trees.” But he doesn’t seem to have learned. Trillion Trees took root humbly and reasonably in 2006. Nobel Peace Prize laureate Wangari Maathai‚ founder of the Green Belt Movement‚ inspired The Billion Tree Campaign‚ with companies and governments hopping aboard. And indeed‚ within a year‚ a billion trees were planted under the auspices of the UN. This objective was then raised to seven billion trees‚ one for every person on the planet at the time‚ and within a few years that was also accomplished. But then in 2015‚ collecting and analyzing data from other scientists‚ Crowther and colleagues published a map of forest density in 2015 that suggested there were three trillion trees on Earth‚ far higher than previously thought. With room for plenty more. Whereupon the 2020 World Economic Forum‚ held in Davos‚ announced the creation of the One Trillion Tree program‚ led by the UN Environment Program and the UN Food and Agricultural organization (FAO). Then-President and forum participant Donald Trump committed the U.S. to the initiative. Later‚ Crowther got more specific. His lab at ETH Zurich reported in 2019 that the Earth had room for “an extra 0.9 billion hectares of canopy cover‚” meaning an additional 1.2 trillion trees‚ according to the accompanying press release‚ which also said that would “absorb more carbon than human emissions each year.” This “highlights global tree restoration as our most effective climate change solution to date.” Crowther later gave dozens of interviews to that effect‚ said Wired.  Then came a big “Oops&;#33;” After much criticism‚ Crowther’s team issued an erratum in which‚ among many other things‚ it retracted the “most effective” terminology and replaced it with knowing of “no other current carbon drawdown solution that is quantitatively as large in terms of carbon capture.” Damage done. Al Gore mentioned the study to Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff‚ who signed onto the initiative‚ and Crowther became one of the project’s advisers. Then countries began hatching their own tree-planting schemes independent of the Trillion Tree goal because it seemed like such a nifty thing.  Mind you‚ planting a few billion trees isn’t difficult. But you don’t need to be a professional arborist to know that eventually the law of diminishing returns kicks in. Planters become more limited in what types of trees‚ seeds‚ or saplings; quality of seed; diversity of tree; types of soil; rainfall‚ and so on are available.  A trillion trees is not simply a thousand times as expensive and difficult as a million. Then‚ in December‚ Crowther was chief author of another paper in the most prestigious science journal‚ Nature. There‚ he claimed‚ “Although forests cannot be a substitute for emissions reductions‚ our results support the idea that the conservation‚ restoration and sustainable management of diverse forests offer valuable contributions to meeting global climate and biodiversity targets.” See what he did&;#63; No more talk about planting new trees‚ except where trees already were but have been removed. That means land that clearly can support trees because it already does. If it hasn’t‚ there’s probably a good reason. It’s not particularly nuanced‚ but either people don’t understand what mass tree-planting projects require or they don’t care. Or … something. Consider the Philippines. Tree planting there has long been a major governmental concern. In 1977‚ President Ferdinand Marcos decreed that everyone over age 10 had to plant a tree a month for five consecutive years. This‚ not surprisingly‚ took place during a period of massive logging for exports. Tree planting is often a smokescreen for overlogging. His successor repealed the law‚ but since then‚ much legislation has mirrored that‚ albeit it is surely toothless. What is currently enforced is pulling kids out of the classroom to plant trees in a country where 15-year-olds rank 77th out of 81 countries globally in the student OECD PISA assessment. Results in math‚ reading‚ and science were all dismal. But‚ by golly‚ they’re planting trees. The Philippines in some ways is ideal for mass planting because it has suffered major deforestation. By 2023‚ most of the country’s trees had been felled‚ according to the government. So the country has planted and planted‚ and indeed it is noted in the “Guinness Book of World Records” for most trees planted simultaneously in different areas. “But look today at the coastline where most of the trees were planted‚” observed Yale Environment 360. “There is no sign of the mangroves that‚ after a decade of growth‚ should be close to maturity. An on-the-ground study published in 2020 found that fewer than 2 percent of them had survived. The other 98 percent had died or were washed away.” Another major flaw in the overall Filipino program is that while mangroves are indeed native‚ only about a sixth of trees designated for planting have been native‚ with a track record for surviving and thriving. A huge percentage are mahogany‚ which produces gorgeous wood but is not ideal for carbon dioxide absorption because it crowds out other trees. “It is self-centered and vain‚” poetically observes one environmentalist publication. It literally transforms the soil to its own liking. Teak is similar‚ yet also a favorite among tree planters ostensibly Saving The Planet. That said‚ at least hardwoods are not burned and thus‚ when converted into furniture‚ do not release their carbon dioxide‚ as they do with using biomass for energy production — another scam I have discussed. But a vastly better candidate is the lowly bamboo‚ which can be made into furniture‚ floorboards‚ and is the primary component of my bedsheets. Actually a form of grass‚ it’s friendly to other species and grows very densely. Bamboo grows incredibly fast‚ up to almost three feet a day; cutting it actually stimulates growth; it can sequester carbon dioxide much faster than woody trees; and it’s virtually fireproof. Ultimately‚ for all the bravado‚ forested Filipino land continues to shrink because more trees are being felled and sold than successfully planted. Even if the newly planted ones weren’t being washed or blown away‚ a tiny little tree cannot approach the absorption level of the large harvested ones. The Filipino experience has‚ is‚ and will be repeated around the world — with documented massive failures in such places as China and Turkey. The repeating pattern is to emphasize planting “but not monitoring and measuring their survival in the long term‚” Ennia Bosshard‚ first author of a paper on the subject in the science journal Diversity told the publication Mongabay. It’s a scam‚ short and simple. The fact is that from 1990 to 2020‚ the planet lost a bit over 4 percent of its forests‚ an area equal to about half the size of India. The best that can be said is perhaps that it could have been worse. Biodiversity has also gone out the window. Around the world‚ “People Plant Trees For Utility More Often Than For Biodiversity Or Carbon‚” notes the title of a 2022 Biological Conservation paper.  The study identified 174 organizations engaged in reforestation efforts in the tropics‚ documenting a variety of tree species and genera. However‚ the recorded species represent only a small fraction of the total tree species found in tropical regions. Many organizations reported only a single species‚ with half reporting fewer than five. The study highlighted a preference for planting the same type of tree‚ likely for ease and cost-effectiveness‚ rather than diversifying. Additionally‚ as always‚ there was a notable lack of monitoring and measuring of survival rates among the organizations‚ suggesting a focus on planting rather than growing trees. Technology can certainly help‚ but people have to want to apply it. The Australian company AirSeed Technologies has developed drones they claim can plant 25 times faster than humans‚ and do so in remote‚ hazardous‚ and inaccessible areas. It says it aims to drop 100 million seed pods a year by 2024 — hopefully nothing a la Jack Finney. But for the math-challenged‚ that’s still just 1 percent of a trillion. Of course‚ many of those who favor planting trees for global warming and diversity purposes mean well. But the overall driving force of Trillion Treeism appears to be politics and propaganda. Don’t assume the likes of Trump and Kevin McCarthy were fooled; tree planting makes political sense for those who are worried that serious carbon dioxide schemes are harmful to economies and our way of life‚ including most readers of this magazine. Companies have signed on because it’s a great form of “greenwashing‚” sometimes defined as “behavior or activities that make people believe that a company is doing more to protect the environment than it really is.” It’s mostly likely done by companies considered to be harming the environment‚ but is cynical enough to include Pornhub’s 2014 claim to plant a tree for every 100 videos watched — “Putting seeds in the ground for the amount of seed they cause to be thrown out‚” a Reddit wag called it. Environmental group publications are all over the greenwashing aspect‚ as with the NRDC’s “Planting Trees Isn’t a Climate Plan; It’s a Distraction.” But the planting mania also reflects an unsolvable problem. Carbon dioxide emissions will keep increasing for the indefinite future‚ and there’s nothing we in the West can do about it because almost a third is now coming from China. Even though its population is shrinking‚ it’s upwardly mobile and that creates higher outputs. India is moving up the list‚ while contributions from the U.S. and Europe are receding. Even if tree planting could sequester significant amounts of carbon dioxide (and remember there are other alleged greenhouse gases)‚ it couldn’t make a dent in the growth of emissions‚ much less what’s already in the atmosphere. We’re going to need new technologies‚ such as commercialized fusion. So long as it’s not to keep the planet from turning into a cinder‚ there’s nothing wrong with planting trees and a lot right with it. A variety of trees means providing habitats for a wide variety of wildlife. Trees can conserve soil and play a role in water management. They can cool urban areas where there really and truly has been increased warming. Trees can enhance the beauty of landscapes and just plain make us feel better. And yes‚ of course‚ we need tree products. But as even Crowther finally admitted‚ it’s obviously better to keep trees from being felled than replacing them. Planting new trees is called “proforestation” as opposed to afforestation‚ and there are organizations like Regeneration.org that have all sorts of ideas on encouraging it. But that must include payments. Nobody fells trees for the sheer fun of it; but rather to make a profit. Ultimately‚ we can’t plant and sustain a trillion trees‚ and it’s a ridiculous goal. We can plant and sustain a lot‚ if we make that our goal. So far it has not been. Michael Fumento is an attorney‚ author‚ journalist‚ and former paratrooper who has written for National Review‚ the Weekly Standard‚ Commentary‚ The American Spectator‚ Human Events‚ Forbes‚ Reason‚ Policy Review‚ the Spectator (London)‚ the Sunday Times of London‚ the Wall Street Journal op-ed page‚ and many other publications. READ MORE: The ‘Panic-demic’ Is Over; Time to Go Back to the Office The Buzz on ‘The Great Honey Bee Die-Off’ Why Do Conservatives Fear ‘Frankenflesh’&;#63; The post Trillion Tree Trickery: The Sad Truth About Tree Planting for Climate Change and Diversity appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Knife: Meditations After an Attempted Murder By Salman Rushdie (Random House‚ 224 pages‚ $28) Two summers ago‚ Salman Rushdie was stabbed by an Islamist radical while giving a talk at the Chautauqua Institution in upstate New York. The attack left him blind in one eye and his body and face nearly ruined. His memoir‚ Knife: Meditations After an Attempted Murder‚ released last week‚ purports to give an account of the attack and his long recovery from it‚ though the book largely fails to make good on its seemingly electrifying premise. I had high hopes for the book‚ in light of the events that led up to it‚ and because Rushdie’s prior foray into nonfiction‚ Joseph Anton: A Memoir (2012)‚ his memoir of the fatwa years‚ is a masterpiece. Covering a quarter-century and told in the third person‚ Rushdie is sympathetic as the world’s most hunted man‚ and the pages fly by. Knife doesn’t quite cut it. In fact‚ Knife seems more like a medical report than a memoir about a terror attack. Too many random daydreams‚ too little action. Too much Rushdie‚ not enough radical Islam. Rushdie’s refusal to go and meet‚ or even speak with‚ his attacker‚ who is currently locked up in a New York prison and awaiting trial‚ didn’t help the story at all. Instead‚ Rushdie relies on an imagined dialogue between himself and his would-be assassin‚ which goes on for 30 pages and is rather unconvincing. Readers don’t want fiction in nonfiction‚ and for good reason. They — we — like to think the events in any book we read‚ even a novel‚ are true. Without an active antagonist‚ in this case an Islam-crazed nutcase‚ as a principal character‚ the narrative was robbed of all suspense‚ preventing Knife from having the tautness and depth of‚ say‚ an In Cold Blood or even a Joseph Anton. In fact‚ radical Islam figures almost not at all into the story‚ and is treated more or less as a topic Rushdie would rather avoid. The villains of Knife are Trump and conservatives‚ or “Trumpublicans” as Rushdie refers to them‚ and much of the book is devoted to their savaging. He attacks Ron DeSantis’ “bigoted revisionism‚” and conservatives’ “fantasies of an idealized past (when exactly was America ‘great’ in the way those red hats wanted to re-create&;#63;).” He weighs in on Brexit‚ climate‚ the Right’s post-Roe “assault on women‚” “the weaponizing of Christianity in the United States‚” and the supposed right-wing war on books‚ libraries and authors. Curiously‚ there’s no criticism of China‚ or any of the book-banning‚ book-hating juntas of the Dar Islam‚ many of which have banned all Rushdie books and even called for his death. It’s the West he’s mad at now. He also doesn’t mention that great eraser‚ cancel culture‚ a product of the Left‚ which has snuffed out many public figures‚ including writers. Yet Rushdie knows very well the threat the intolerant New Left pose to free speech and expression. As he told Anderson Cooper two weeks ago: The attack is coming from so many different directions. It used to be the case that very conservative voices were the places from which you would hear that such and such a book should be banned or is obscene… [What’s] different now is that it’s also coming from progressive voices. There are progressives saying that certain kinds of speech should not be permitted because it offends against this or that vulnerable group. So he knows the threat that the wokesters pose to free speech‚ yet he still continues to cast lots with them and eviscerate conservatives at every opportunity&;#63; Reminds one of what Ann Coulter said years ago: “If Democrats had any brains‚ they’d be Republicans.” It’s conservatives‚ not liberals who are trying to preserve our First Amendment freedoms. But it’s not clear that Rushdie even believes in the First Amendment‚ or freedom‚ anymore. From Knife: I was in no state to talk about freedom. It was a word that had become a minefield. Ever since conservatives started laying claim to it (Freedom Tower‚ freedom fries)‚ liberals and progressives had started backing away from it toward new definitions of the social good according to which people would no longer be entitled to dispute the new norms. Protecting the rights and sensibilities of groups perceived as vulnerable would take precedence over freedom of speech‚ which the Nobel laureate Elias Canetti had called “the tongue set free.” This move away from First Amendment principles allowed that venerable piece of the Constitution to be co-opted by the right. The First Amendment was now what allowed conservatives to lie‚ to abuse‚ to denigrate. It became a kind of freedom for bigotry. The right had a new social agenda too‚ one that sounded a lot like an old one: authoritarianism‚ backed up by unscrupulous media‚ big money‚ complicit politicians‚ and corrupt judges. “The tongue set free‚ huh&;#63;” Unless … one says something wrong‚ or simply the wrong way‚ in which case the tongue will be permanently set free‚ with a sharp object. But Salman Rushdie is enamored of such an idea‚ apparently thinking himself too evolved‚ too cool‚ for the plebeian First Amendment‚ which protects the rights of the unschooled and the Ivy Leaguer in equal measure. One feels that is what Rushdie‚ a well-known snob‚ has a problem with. Then there’s this little gem‚ also from Knife: America is sliding back towards the Middle Ages‚ as white supremacy exerts itself not only over Black bodies‚ but over women’s bodies too. False narratives rooted in antiquated religiosity and bigoted ideas from hundreds of years ago are used to justify this‚ and find willing audiences and believers… Above all we must understand that stories are at the heart of what’s happening‚ and the dishonest narratives of oppressors have proved attractive to many. So we must work to overturn the false narratives of tyrants‚ populists‚ and fools by telling better stories than they do‚ stories within which people want to live. Stories in which people want to live&;#63; From a man whose books have caused riots and gotten people murdered and blown up&;#63; He can’t be serious. Certainly‚ if he thinks the U.S. is medieval‚ then he’ll have a hard time living anywhere on our sad planet. “Rushdie was a bit of a Leftie‚” his late friend Christopher Hitchens reports in his memoirs. I’ll say. And still is. Trump’s election‚ which occurred the same year Rushdie became a U.S. citizen‚ appears to have wounded our subject more deeply‚ more permanently‚ than his would-be assassin’s blade. I recently came across a 2017 interview Rushdie did with the Guardian in which he seems almost obsessively anti-Trump‚ even going as far as to say that the Charlottesville protest should not have been allowed at all‚ since the protesters were‚ in his view‚ there to commit violence. A startling position for a supposed free-speech advocate to take. Even the American Civil Liberties Union supported the Charlottesville marchers’ right to assemble. Rushdie has told the BBC that if Trump wins‚ he will probably move back to Britain. He claimed America will be “unlivable” if Trump wins again and then compared Trump to Harvey Weinstein‚ Boris Johnson‚ and Adolf Eichmann‚ an odd trio for sure. He doesn’t like post-Brexit Britain either‚ he tells the interviewer. It seems our subject is increasingly a man without a country. Where can he go to find that perfect balance of total freedom for himself and his fellow leftists and limited freedoms for those with whom they disagree&;#63; Maybe Sweden&;#63; Canada&;#63; Scotland&;#63; The Scottish Parliament just enacted a hate speech law of the sort Rushdie seems to want‚ the brainchild of a young Muslim lawmaker who’s now the country’s first minister. How would the author of The Satanic Verses like living under that&;#63; Talk about medieval. Making sense of Rushdie is not easy‚ but one thing we can say for sure is that he is‚ above all else‚ a careerist. This is the same guy who‚ in 1990‚ attempted to get Khomeini’s fatwa lifted by publishing an essay saying he had converted to Islam. The mullahs were not fooled. The fatwa remained. Now the careerist is at it again‚ saying anything to keep his paymasters in the uber-woke worlds of publishing and media happy‚ betting that sniping constantly at conservatives will keep him employed and perhaps prevent his own long-called-for cancellation. Maybe not such a bad strategy from a career standpoint‚ as the hand by whom one’s bread is buttered also holds a knife. Moreover‚ I believe Rushdie feels guilty about his years as a blaspheming bad boy‚ as the definitional anti-Islam‚ anti-P.C. rebel. The entire subtext of Knife screams “I’m sorry.” Sorry‚ for my wild days‚ for my years of blaspheming Islam‚ for The Satanic Verses. (Did he pay back the royalties&;#63; Relinquish the rights&;#63;) Such speech was tolerated in the carefree 1980s. Blaspheming stuff was cool then. But ours is a far less tolerant time. That Salman Rushdie appears to be joining ranks with the censors is a most disheartening development. In any case‚ our First Amendment is nonnegotiable. It is enshrined‚ on the hearts of Our People‚ and must be preserved in its most literal and radical form. Salman Rushdie’s right to speak‚ prosper‚ and write books that start riots shall not be infringed. READ MORE: Clay Travis’ Free Speech Threatened by Dem Rep. Swalwell The Censorship Lobby Is Worried About … Censorship&;#63; Free Speech on Trial The post Salman Rushdie: Free Speech for Me But Not for Thee appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The tragic wildfire in Lahaina last August — America’s worst in more than a century‚ with nearly 100 deaths and 2‚000 buildings and homes destroyed — left many on the lush island of Maui and beyond looking for answers. Hawaii Gov. Josh Green was quick to assign blame: “That level of destruction‚ and a fire hurricane‚ something new to us in this age of global warming‚ was the ultimate reason that so many people perished.” But was climate change really to blame&;#63; This past week‚ on April 18‚ the Western Fire Chiefs Association published an after-action report that examined possible causes for the Maui wildfires’ unprecedented ferocity. Even though the report cited overgrown grass as a contributing factor‚ it failed to mention that green energy policies — such as solar panel incentives — led to the purchase of those now-fallow lands. In fact‚ the report stopped short of identifying any specific cause for the fires. Last week‚ Hawaii’s attorney general also published the Lahaina Fire Comprehensive Timeline report‚ which that failed to identify a culprit. But numerous indications suggest that the very efforts that Hawaii zealously pushed to combat climate change — including an intense focus on electric vehicles (EVs) — exacerbated the environmental devastation caused by the Lahaina wildfire. Hawaii’s Green Push and the Rise of EVs In 2008‚ proudly green Hawaii launched the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative‚ with the aim of achieving 100 percent renewable energy by 2045‚ among other goals. Hawaii thus became a model (or a “test bed‚” as one U.S. Energy Department deputy put it) for the U.S. and the world. Hawaii began to shift its economy toward green goals via a radical reorganization of the energy industry‚ starting with a new regulatory framework and a financial incentive structure. After the Paris Climate Accords took effect in 2016‚ Hawaii became the first state to enact legislation implementing the UN’s climate goals‚ making it a progressive poster child for the green technology revolution. Hawaii has now spent billions of dollars installing a full spectrum of green technology‚ including solar panels‚ wind turbines‚ and acres of electricity storage facilities. Fatefully‚ more Hawaiians are driving EVs than ever before‚ and its EV adoption rate is the second-highest for any state after California. In particular‚ the island of Maui‚ on which Lahaina is situated‚ achieved the highest concentration of EVs in the nation in 2015‚ and EV registrations surged 37 percent in Maui from March 2023 to March 2024. One problem with EV batteries is that there are no long-term storage and recycling solutions on the remote islands of Hawaii. Thus‚ growing stockpiles of dead EV batteries threaten to turn Hawaii’s green energy dreams into an ecological nightmare‚ as the tragic Lahaina wildfire demonstrated. A little-known development in the aftermath of the Lahaina fire was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) unprecedented focus on EV batteries. As of late 2023‚ Maui cleanup crews had removed 30 tons of lithium-ion batteries from 94 EV vehicles and 274 home and business power walls‚ according to the EPA. The technical term for batteries catching on fire is “thermal runaway‚” which occurs when a lithium-ion battery ignites and kicks off a chemical chain reaction. The lithium-ion batteries that power everything from cellphones to EVs have even been known to spontaneously catch fire. “Once a lithium-ion battery is impacted and heated up‚ it’s like a time bomb‚” an EPA official told reporters. “It only takes one in the pack. Once that starts‚ it can spread to the rest of the batteries. It can be quite a violent fire‚ and it’s very hard to put out with just water.” With so many EV batteries in the burn zone‚ a massive thermal runaway would have heightened the intensity of the August 2023 fire. And when EV batteries combust‚ they release toxic chemicals into the air and groundwater. So‚ how and why did Hawaii’s green energy ambitions backfire so tragically&;#63; In 2010‚ Hawaii introduced an initiative called EV Ready‚ which offers grant and rebate programs to accelerate EV adoption by providing car shoppers with up to $5‚000 in incentives to buy an EV and install its charging equipment. Starting in 2012‚ public parking was free for drivers of electric vehicles. The free-parking EV program was so successful that by 2020 the state had to end it. More recently‚ drivers of large diesel vehicles were offered up to 45 percent off the price of a new EV equivalent via the Diesel Replacement Rebate program. Hawaii’s largest utility company‚ Hawaiian Electric‚ has lobbied for more federal EV funding‚ sponsored events promoting EVs‚ and pushed for incentives for tourists to rent EVs. Roughly two million tourists visit Maui annually and most make it to the town that was once the historical capital of Hawaii: Lahaina. Notably‚ four out of five tourists choose to rent a car during their stay. More than a decade ago‚ Maui decided to make electric vehicles part of the “vacation experience‚” but it seems that thermal runaway was not even an afterthought because the island apparently had no plan to address the mounting problems posed by decommissioned EV batteries. A Local Perspective Rob Oakley‚ a 55-year-old native of Oahu‚ has worked in the auto industry for 40 years. His auto repair shop has been around for a while‚ but the Hawaii auto marketplace has changed radically over those years given the all-out push toward EVs. As increasing numbers of EVs are decommissioned‚ Oakley has noticed a big problem: dealing with all of these dead EV batteries. Hawaii does not have a single facility to adequately recycle its 20-year buildup of lithium-ion batteries‚ according to Oakley. Instead‚ batteries pile up on palettes in scrap yards across the island. Oakley has been conducting a crusade to get a battery recycling center up and running — imploring everyone from a local car dealership to the governor of Hawaii to President Joe Biden to address the issue. All attempts were rebuffed or redirected down the bureaucratic rabbit hole‚ Oakley says. In a February 2021 email to EPA deputy Wayne Roepe‚ Oakley complained that EV batteries were being dumped on roadsides and thrown into landfills. “I guess‚” he added‚ “we will have to have a disaster happen before any of you losers in high offices will do anything about it.” Last year‚ the disaster came. In its spending spree on green energy — at least $4 billion earmarked for dozens of proposed green projects in 2020 alone — there is no evidence that Hawaii had considered cautionary measures such as EV battery disposal. Local resident Kelli Lundgren shares Oakley’s concerns about the threats posed by the accumulation of toxic materials‚ especially in the aftermath of the Lahaina wildfire. Lundgren docks her boat just off Lahaina and has seen the devastation firsthand. Although she considers herself an environmentalist and appreciates the government’s green initiatives‚ Lundgren worries about the toxins from the Lahaina fire contaminating the water supply and coral reefs just off the coast. “The government will make a plan with good intentions‚” says Lundgren‚ “but is the local government going to use the money they’ve gotten from the federal government properly and efficiently&;#63;” Her concern is well-founded. The EPA has warned that‚ in addition to being a fire risk‚ improperly disposed lithium-ion batteries can cause a host of other problems‚ including air and soil contamination‚ ecosystem degradation‚ and human health maladies caused by exposure to the battery contents such ascobalt‚ nickel‚ manganese‚ titanium‚ graphite‚ and flammable electrolytes. Indeed‚ according to a lab that analyzed Lahaina ash samples for the Hawaii Department of Health‚ cobalt‚ nickel‚ and manganese — the critical metals used in EV batteries — have been detected in the samples. The health officials warn that the levels of cobalt‚ a potential carcinogen‚ are especially high. What’s Next for Hawaii&;#63; On a positive note‚ Hawaii may be finally awakening to its battery problem. Last month‚ a bill was quietly proposed that would create a recycling department for lithium-ion batteries‚ among other requirements. As appealing as the green agenda may have been for the state‚ the Lahaina fire highlights the need for a review of EV batteries (particularly the lithium-ion type)‚ which are glaringly absent from both the Western Fire Chiefs Association and the attorney general reports. Perhaps investigators should consider how Hawaii’s green obsession may have exacerbated the wildfires as they continue to search for the causes. Hawaii set out to be an example for the globe‚ and perhaps it can still be — as a cautionary tale. Samuel Schaefer is a Research Analyst at Peter Schweizer’s Government Accountability Institute and a contributor to Schweizer’s Drill Down. He studied politics‚ philosophy‚ and English at Hillsdale College. Follow Samuel to receive more breaking news and analysis. The post Thermal Runaway: How Hawaii’s Green Obsession Exacerbated the Worst American Wildfire in a Century appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Mike Johnson Is a Hero

The Alarming Implications of Trump's Immunity Claim

Anti-Censorship Group Canceled by Pro-Hamas Authors

State Department: Ukraine Has 'Significant' Human Rights Issues