This year’s Conference of the Parties to the U.N. climate agreements‚ or COP‚ is being held in the Emirate of Dubai‚ arguably the world’s most extravagant display of oil wealth. Ironies abound. The host and president of this year’s conference‚ Sultan Ahmed al Jaber‚ happens also to be the CEO of the United Arab Emirates’ national oil company. An embarrassing contretemps was inevitable and finally materialized on no less a subject than “net zero‚” the COP’s essential objective of reducing global “greenhouse gas” emissions through a combination of reduced emissions and carbon sequestration. “There is no science out there‚ or no scenario out there‚ that says that the phaseout of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5 degrees Celsius‚” said Al Jaber onstage recently‚ “unless you want to take the world back into caves.” Climate activists erupted in consternation‚ and immediately pointed to the International Energy Agency’s recent update of its “Net Zero Roadmap.” The IEA was created in response to the OPEC oil embargo of 1973‚ which caused oil prices to quadruple amid crippling shortages. According to its founding text‚ the IEA’s purpose was to “promote secure oil supplies‚” “meet oil supply emergencies‚” and reduce “dependence on imported oil.” For decades‚ it served as a useful platform for data-gathering‚ analysis‚ and policy coordination among major economies‚ all with the purpose of making the world energy market more resilient to oil shocks. But starting with the publication in 2021 of its “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector‚” IEA jumped on the climate bandwagon. As Executive Director Fatih Birol later proudly noted‚ the new report “quickly became our most viewed and downloaded publication ever.” Whether out of a commitment to saving the planet‚ a desire to be feted by the climate jet set‚ or both‚ the IEA staff in effect abandoned its organic mission of protecting oil scarcity and instead started promoting it. Embracing the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate as its new mission‚ the IEA report laid out several scenarios for how things could go. These scenarios had several interesting features in common. First‚ they were all‚ to varying degrees‚ thoroughly implausible. More worrisome‚ if any of them were used as a policy guide to constrain fossil fuel production‚ the most likely outcome (other than windfall profits for oil companies) would be an energy crisis‚ and possibly an oil shock. That worry has only grown since 2021‚ because (as could easily have been predicted) the world has fallen far short of the pace needed to achieve any of the scenarios. As a result‚ ever more drastic and desperate measures are being called for in order to get “back on track.” In the most drastic Net-Zero Emissions scenario‚ the report called for no new oil and gas fields and no new coal mines starting immediately in 2021. By 2030‚ all coal plants would be shuttered or operating on full carbon capture and storage (meaning all emissions would need to be captured before entering the atmosphere) and 60% of cars sold would be electric. The share of the overall world energy supply supplied by unabated fossil fuels (e.g.‚ fossil fuels not tied to some carbon-capture scheme) would fall by about a third. By 2035‚ no new gasoline-powered cars would be made and advanced economies would achieve net-zero electricity. By 2040‚ global oil demand would be 50% of the 2020 low and unabated fossil fuels would be disappearing fast. (Source: IEA‚ “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.” Note that “NZE” = Net-Zero Emissions scenario and “CCUS” = carbon capture‚ utilization‚ and storage.) In the less drastic Announced Pledges Scenario‚ thanks to “stronger policy action‚” the IEA projected that oil consumption would not return to its 2019 peak of 98 million barrels per day worldwide and would fall further. This scenario‚ which assumes full implementation of all the pledges made under the Paris Agreement‚ would still “fall well short of what is necessary to reach global net-zero emissions by 2050‚” which the IEA claims would lead to an average temperature rise of 2.1 degrees Celsius by 2100. Even in the least drastic Stated Policies Scenario‚ oil peaks at around 104 million barrels per day shortly after 2030 and thereafter holds steady‚ while coal declines by 15% and temperatures rise 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100. Even in this gloomy scenario‚ however‚ the IEA projected that overall carbon emissions would peak at 35 gigatons in 2030 and decline by a third among advanced economies‚ “thanks to the impact of policies and technological progress in reducing energy demand and switching to cleaner fuels.” What Is the IEA’s New Role? The IEA avoided calling explicitly for reductions in fossil fuel production in its 2021 report. But a reduction in production is heavily implied in its attributing the emissions reduction progress in various scenarios to “stronger policy action‚” which is an obvious reference to oil producers’ reducing production. Perhaps the most implausible aspect of the IEA scenarios is that they treat the development and availability of low-carbon substitutes such as wind and solar energy as the metric of success‚ such that fossil fuels are largely obviated‚ leading to demand for fossil fuels falling faster than supply. Hence‚ in the fantasy world of the IEA’s climate forecasts‚ the closer the world gets to net zero‚ the lower the price of fossil fuels. This analytical sleight-of-hand has already infected the IEA’s “World Energy Outlook‚” long a benchmark for energy analysts. In the 2022 edition‚ the following graph appears: (Source: IEA‚ “World Energy Outlook 2022‚” p. 330.) For an idea of how much LSD was in that Kool-Aid‚ consider just a few facts. The Net-Zero Emissions scenario had oil demand dropping further from its pandemic low and reaching perhaps 80 million barrels per day by 2025. In fact‚ as the IEA more recently acknowledged‚ demand likely reached 102 million barrels per day in 2023‚ which is higher growth than in the Stated Policies Scenario. More fantastical still‚ the Net-Zero Emissions scenario had oil prices falling precipitously from 2020 to 2030 and then dropping below $30/per barrel after that‚ which is not enough to cover costs for many or most producers. So‚ not only was the IEA saying that renewables would be in plentiful abundance as substitutes for oil at current prices‚ it was saying that renewables would remain cost-competitive even with oil prices falling by about 70%. There was an obvious problem with all three IEA scenarios. IEA had not even bothered to do the main thing it was supposed to do‚ which was to attempt an objective forecast of what scenarios were most likely. The IEA treated the Stated Policies Scenario almost like a “no action” baseline (what in economic forecasting is often called a “base case”). However‚ not only is Stated Policies Scenario not a “no action” scenario‚ but achieving it would require changes in law so sweeping that it is only slightly less implausible than the sheer science fiction of the Net-Zero Emissions and Announced Pledges scenarios.  Take the United States‚ for example. Here‚ part of the “stated policy” is President Joe Biden’s plan to achieve net-zero electricity by 2035. At an IEA briefing at last year’s Conference of the Parties in Egypt‚ I asked IEA staff whether there was any attempt to assess the feasibility of any of the stated policies. As reported at the time by Reason magazine‚ I pointed out that‚ as far as the U.S. was concerned‚ the stated policy was an “absolute fantasy.” I explained that the red tape involved in obtaining required federal permits for energy infrastructure is a virtually insurmountable obstacle to building renewable energy infrastructure at the scale and speed that would be required to achieve net-zero electricity by 2035. IEA staff answered that this was indeed a problem that they had discussed‚ but they couldn’t second-guess stated policy for fear of contradicting the governments on the IEA’s Governing Board.  A year on‚ Congress has done little to fix the bottleneck in permitting energy infrastructure. As a result‚ there is a severe constraint on the amount of renewable electricity capacity that can be permitted in a given year. In no year has the amount permitted been anywhere near the pace that would be required to meet Biden’s goals. Indeed‚ partly because Biden rescinded the Trump-era reforms‚ the amount of renewable electricity capacity permitted in 2022 was 10% lower than in 2020‚ the last year of the Trump administration. The American Clean Power Association explains some of the reasons why: “Supply chain constraints‚ lengthy delays connecting projects to the grid‚ unclear trade restrictions‚ long-standing permitting obstacles‚ and uncertainty over IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] implementation hindered project development and investment activity.” (Source: American Clean Power‚ “Clean Power Annual Market Report 2022.”) Crash Landing the Global Economy Into Compliance With the Paris Agreement Biden’s proposed electric vehicle and power plant mandates are an attempt to crash-land the U.S. transportation and power sectors into compliance with the Paris Agreement. If implemented‚ there will certainly be a crash. By choking off the production of gas-powered vehicles and fossil fuel-based electricity generation before renewable substitutes are cost-competitive and available‚ the regulations would cause a catastrophic scarcity crisis in both the transportation and power sectors. The crisis would be grossly regressive‚ falling hardest on the most vulnerable.  In the recently released 2023 update to its “Net Zero Roadmap‚” the IEA continues to treat supply reductions as if they are really demand reductions. For example‚ says the IEA update‚ “Well-designed policies‚ such as the early retirement or repurposing of coal-fired power plants‚ are key to facilitate declines in fossil fuel demand and create additional room for clean energy to expand.” The same conflation of supply and demand is now driving the latest controversy at the Conference of the Parties‚ as governments negotiate furiously over draft text that would “phase out fossil fuels in line with best available science” or language to similar effect. Some have described the purpose as phasing out fossil fuel “use‚” but as details emerge‚ it is becoming clear that what most people at the conference have in mind is phasing out fossil fuel production. The difference‚ as even the IEA would acknowledge‚ is that cutting fossil fuel “use” means reducing demand‚ leading to lower prices‚ whereas cutting fossil fuel “production” means reducing supply‚ which can only raise prices. Countries can reduce demand for fossil fuels in a variety of ways‚ from technology-driven reductions in energy intensity across the economy to developing cost-competitive renewable substitutes to forced rationing (e.g.‚ government-created scarcity on the demand side). Any of these lower the price for oil and gas—though they also lower the price at which renewables have to be cost-competitive‚ creating new difficulties for any clean up energy transition. But cutting production would mean catastrophic energy scarcity‚ or “taking the world back into caves‚” in the memorable words of Al Jaber. Getting the IEA Back on Track Whether the Conference of the Parties will agree to create an energy crisis‚ as some of the proposals would certainly do‚ remains to be seen. One thing we know for sure is that such an agreement would be totally contrary to the mission of the IEA. The IEA’s original purpose included development of alternative energy sources. But that was in order to protect against future oil shocks‚ not to create a transition to alternative sources at the risk of an oil shock. The U.S. has the lion’s share of voting rights on the IEA’s Governing Board. Those voting rights should be used to fire the current executive director and replace him with somebody who will stick to the IEA’s actual mission in the real world. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Going Rogue: The International Energy Agency’s Mission Is to Protect Against an Oil Shortage. Instead‚ It’s Promoting One. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It’s no secret that regulation hits the poorest Americans the hardest. Academic research has long demonstrated that environmental regulations impose a higher cost on low-income Americans than they do on the general population.  The phenomenon is most visible in the automobile sector‚ where the average price for a new car was $48‚008. Even the least expensive new cars available in 2023 averaged over $20‚000. With a third of American households earning under $50‚000 per year and nearly a quarter earning less than $35‚000‚ a new car is out of reach for too many American families.  Of course‚ nothing in the Constitution gives Americans the right to have a new car. Some goods are just expensive. A midrange Rolex also costs around $20‚000‚ and no one would argue that every working American should be able to afford a Rolex. But cars are different for two reasons. First‚ car ownership is a key ingredient in improving the lives of low-income Americans. For example‚ research shows that Americans are far more likely to get off welfare if they own a car. Having a car also leads to better educational and health care outcomes.  Second‚ cars are more expensive because of Washington rules and regulations. One study estimates that the combined cost of regulation on vehicle prices is as high as 20%‚ which in dollar terms is $6‚000 to $7‚000 or more per vehicle. A Heritage Foundation study on the impact of fuel efficiency standards during the Obama administration found that vehicles could be as much as $7‚100 less expensive if not for those regulations alone. (The Daily Signal is the news and commentary outlet of The Heritage Foundation.) But don’t we need regulations to make cars safe? Maybe. But regulation alone does not improve safety‚ and just because some mandate or standard could marginally improve safety doesn’t mean that it should be required. Consider that about 33 people died for every 10‚000 vehicles being driven in 1913. Ten years later‚ that number dropped by 63% to approximately 12 deaths and then dropped over 83% to five by 1966.  The year 1966 is important because that’s the year that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was passed‚ which provides the statutory foundation for much of Washington’s authority to regulate auto safety.  The question then becomes whether autos become safer after the legislation was passed. By 2021‚ the number of deaths for every 10‚000 vehicles did fall to 1.6‚ but that number is hardly an improvement over the massive gains made prior to the 1966 Act. Further‚ while it’s also true that important safety improvements like seat belts‚ collapsible steering columns‚ and shatterproof windshields were mandated after the act was in place‚ these improvements‚ in all likelihood‚ would have been made anyway as consumers demanded greater safety‚ as was demonstrated before the act.   Even if regulation is the only reason these important safety upgrades were made‚ it doesn’t justify the endless barrage of regulatory requirements we continue to see. Backup cameras and tire pressure indicators are nice and do provide an additional element of safety‚ but should they be required? And more rules are being lined up all the time‚ like automatic idling shut-off‚ automatic emergency braking‚ lane change and crash warnings‚ driver monitoring‚ headlight regulation‚ and the list goes on.   Something often not considered is what safety improvements were never introduced because car manufacturers spent limited resources on meeting regulatory requirements rather than on developing the safety features that consumers wanted most at the most affordable prices. And then there are antiquated tariffs‚ specifically‚ the so-called chicken tax‚ which is a 25% tariff on certain light-duty trucks that are available in most countries. This increases the price such that they aren’t even offered in the United States. Despite all of this‚ the average price for automobiles has remained relatively stable over the years with auto prices lagging slightly behind general inflation. Indeed‚ many justify the increased regulatory burden by pointing out that the price of cars has not increased as compared to the broader economy. But this ignores two very important real-world implications. The fact is that autos would be much less expensive today and consumers would have a much wider selection of products and price points if not for Washington’s heavy hand. This‚ after all‚ is the normal trajectory of most consumer products. Televisions‚ personal computers‚ and microwave ovens are all good examples of what happens when new technologies are introduced to the marketplace. They are initially extremely expensive and relatively low-tech. But as the technology develops and competition drives innovation and lower prices‚ these items become more capable while also becoming more affordable to most Americans.       This is exactly what happens elsewhere in the world where government regulation of automobiles is not so heavy-handed. Take the wildly popular Toyota Land Cruiser 7‚ for example. This highly capable SUV is literally selling out in countries where it’s available‚ which is not surprising. It does all the things one might want from an SUV and comes in with a price tag under $35‚000. But they are not available in the United States because they don’t comply with U.S. rules and regulations.  Toyota offers other even more budget-friendly pickups such as the Hilux‚ which can cost as little as $15‚000‚ as well as other economical options. Suzuki offers the Jimmy at a mere $15‚000. None of these will be available in the United States because of regulations. This is absurd‚ and every American should demand better. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post How Government Limits Our Choice in Low-Cost Automobiles appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In a gratifying win for religious freedom and free speech‚ the Virginia Supreme Court concluded Thursday that embattled Virginia high school teacher Peter Vlaming‚ who had been fired over his refusal to use a student’s preferred pronouns because of his religious faith‚ was protected by the free exercise and free speech clauses of the Virginia Constitution. In 2018‚ Vlaming‚ then a West Point High School French teacher‚ consistently referred to his transgender student (a biological female) by the student’s preferred name. However‚ he carefully avoided the use of third-person pronouns when referring to the student so as to not violate his religious beliefs. This wasn’t good enough for the West Point School Board‚ which ordered Vlaming to use the student’s preferred pronouns‚ too. Vlaming refused.   Following a complaint by the student‚ school administrators charged Vlaming with violating the school’s harassment and nondiscrimination policies. According to West Point Schools Superintendent Laura Abel‚ “Mr. Vlaming was recommended for termination due to his insubordination and repeated refusal to comply with directives made to him by multiple WPPS administrators. That discrimination then leads to creating a hostile learning environment. And the student had expressed that. The parent had expressed that. They felt disrespected.” Shortly thereafter‚ in a 5-0 vote‚ the West Point School Board terminated Vlaming’s employment‚ despite his stellar record and seven-year history of teaching at West Point High School. Vlaming then sued the West Point School Board in 2019‚ asserting constitutional‚ statutory‚ and breach-of-contract claims. While a lower court dismissed Vlaming’s claims‚ the Virginia Supreme Court reversed‚ sending Vlaming’s lawsuit back down to the trial court so that his case against the school board can proceed. The majority decision‚ which was written by Justice D. Arthur Kelsey‚ is a landmark victory for freedom of conscience and expression in the state. In its opinion‚ the Court held that religious exercise is protected under the Virginia Constitution unless it threatens the public safety or order. In doing so‚ the court rejected Justice Antonin Scalia’s highly criticized test in Employment Division v. Smith‚ which gutted religious freedom in cases where the government law at issue is neutral and applies to everyone. At the federal level‚ Scalia’s problematic Smith opinion was the impetus for passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—which just celebrated its 30th anniversary.   Rather than relying on Smith‚ the court in Vlaming v. West Point School Board examined the Virginia Constitution’s text and its framers’ views on religious freedom. The court explained that the Virginia Constitution provided more protection for religious freedom than even the United States Constitution. And it doesn’t just protect religious beliefs—the court declared—it also protects the right to exercise those beliefs in acts or speech in every part of life. The court wrote that the issue was not whether the school board’s policies forbidding discrimination and harassment applied (as the school board had asserted) or did not apply (as Vlaming had asserted) to the compelled-speech situation Vlaming alleged. Rather‚ the issue was whether Vlaming’s sincerely held religious beliefs caused him to commit overt acts that “invariably posed some substantial threat to public safety‚ peace or order‚” and if so‚ whether‚ under a “strict scrutiny” review of the claim‚ the government’s compelling interest in protecting the public from that threat could be satisfied by “less restrictive means.” The court wrote that when religious liberty merges with free-speech protections‚ as it did in Vlaming’s case‚ mere “objectionable” and “hurtful” religious speech (or in Vlaming’s case‚ “nonspeech”) wasn’t enough to meet this strict scrutiny standard. Objectionable and hurtful religious speech‚ the court declared‚ poses no threat to the public safety or order. That meant that Vlaming’s refusal to use the student’s preferred pronouns because of his religious beliefs was protected even if others viewed his silence as offensive or hurtful. The court also tossed out the school district’s argument that public school teachers must leave their free exercise rights at the schoolhouse gate. It wrote that Virginia’s Constitution “seeks to protect diversity of thought‚ diversity of speech‚ diversity of religion‚ and diversity of opinion‚ [and that] absent a truly compelling reason for doing so‚ no government committed to these principles can lawfully coerce its citizens into pledging verbal allegiance to ideological views that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.” The Virginia Constitution forbade the district from terminating Vlaming because he refused to violate his religious beliefs. The court then went on to address Vlaming’s compelled speech claims. It cited the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case‚ writing that his “claim challenges an attempt by the government to ‘compel an individual to create speech [he] does not believe’ and to ‘utter what is not in [his] mind’ about a question of political and religious significance.” “[I]f liberty means anything at all‚” Kelsey wrote‚ “it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear…. All the more‚ it means the right to disagree without speaking at all.” The court added that no court has ever held that referring to a transgender student by a preferred name while entirely avoiding the use of pronouns is sexual harassment under federal law—as the school board had alleged.  In fact‚ Kelsey cited a court ruling that had held the opposite. Vlaming’s attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom‚ Chris Schandevel‚ celebrated Thursday’s win saying‚ “The West Point School Board violated [the] constitution[‘s] command when it tried to force Vlaming to endorse the school’s ideological viewpoints on gender identity. And the Virginia Supreme Court rightly vindicated Vlaming’s right to stand by his convictions in its decision.” Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post High School Teacher Vindicated by Virginia Supreme Court Over Mandated Pronoun Use. It’s the (Virginia) Constitution‚ Stupid. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

One of Hollywood’s most classic movie pairings is Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. The couple shared the silver screen on several occasions and met one another while working on a film together. Unfortunately‚ their union was short-lived. Bacall was only in her early 30s when her husband passed away. Bogart and Bacall’s love story is legendary. The couple had a magnetic attraction that her... Source

Air Force One is the official name for the aircraft that carries the President of the United States when he’s traveling. The plane is considered to be one of the greatest symbols of the American presidency and the power of the position. The idea for a specific airplane for the president came about in 1943 after the United States Army Air Forces became concerned about the reliance on commercial... Source

As people age‚ they usually find that the older they get‚ the faster time passes. And while time is always marching forward at the same rate‚ the people have perceived it at various points in history has changed dramatically. For that reason‚ it’s not hard to develop a series of assumptions that govern the popular understanding of how time has moved and how far apart certain events and people... Source

Ft Collins CO Has the Creepiest School Trans-Gende...Sorry - 'Health &; Wellness' Centers on Earth

Politico: Guess Who's Pushing Biden Away from Israel?

Book Recommendation: Brutal Minds

Click to Skip Ahead About Cheerble Overview Key Features Is It A Good Value? FAQ   Our Experience Our Final Verdict We give Cheerble Wicket Ball a rating of 4.6 out of 5 stars. Quality: 4.5/5 Variety: 5/5 Safety: 4/5 Value: 5/5 Check Price on Cheerble Step into the future of pet entertainment with the Cheerble Wicked Ball‚ a must-have in the realm of interactive toys for our beloved four-legged companions. In a market flooded with conventional pet toys‚ the Wicked Ball stands out as a unique and interactive device designed to endlessly engage and entertain your pets. Since 2017‚ Cheerble has been committed to fostering joy and engagement between pets and their human counterparts. Cheerble has become a trusted name in the industry‚ with their core values being pet-oriented. The Cheerble Wicked Ball SE‚ their latest creation‚ embodies this dedication. Designed with both dogs and cats in mind‚ the Wicked Ball is set to captivate the hearts of pet owners seeking a dynamic and entertaining way to enrich their furry friends’ lives. Its intelligent design‚ combining unpredictable movements and interactive features‚ ensures hours of stimulation‚ making it an ideal choice for pets with varying energy levels and play preferences. What sets this ball apart is its ability to roll‚ spin‚ and jolt‚ captivating the attention of even the most discerning pets. About Cheerble In 2017‚ a group of self-proclaimed “pawrents” wanted to create new‚ innovative ways pet parents can interact with their fur babies. With technology overtaking every industry‚ the founders of Cheerble believe the pet space should be no different. Their goal in mind was to create tech-forward pet products designed to “cheer pets up”‚ hence their name. Their first creation was a moving bone-shaped toy that responds to different touch from your pet or from an app controlled by the owner. From there‚ Cheerble grew to more variations of technology-based pet products. Now‚ hundreds of thousands of pet parents spoil their fur babies with these high-tech toys. Overview Check Price on Cheerble Pricing Now‚ if you’re like me‚ I usually pick out pet toys that are on the bottom shelf in the discount section. Toys in my house usually last a maximum of 6 minutes‚ so why spend a lot of money on something that is bound to be destroyed? So‚ when I saw the price of $39.99‚ my first thought was that I would never spend that much on a dog toy. However‚ the experience we’ve had last week definitely justifies the price. The durability and endless entertainment the Wicked Ball is providing are worth every penny. Contents Upon arrival‚ you will receive a little box that contains the manual‚ the charging cord‚ and the ball‚ of course. The ball comes charged and ready to go so your pet can immediately start to enjoy it. The manual is easy to follow. There are 3 interaction modes – passive‚ normal‚ and gentle. Switching between modes couldn’t be easier and the bright colors are fun to watch. Specs Durable rubber Water-proof 3 interaction modes Fun‚ random movement Ideal for toy-small dogs Rechargeable In Summary Pros Durable Decent battery life Cons Potential choking hazard (for larger dogs) Key Features Check Price on Cheerble Durability Pet toys don’t last long in our house. We also have a dog‚ Tater Tot‚ who has a history of ingesting foreign objects. One instance even led to an emergency surgery. So‚ we are diligent in monitoring her playtime with her toys to prevent another surgery. All of my dogs have put this toy through the ringer‚ and you can’t even tell. Automatic and Interactive Modes The Cheerble Wicked Ball SE offers 3 modes to keep your dog busy. The “Gentle” mode means slow rolling and shaking when touched. The “Normal” mode means the ball will jump and roll around without needing to be touched by your pet. The “Passive” mode makes the ball jump around on contact. Variety The Wicked Ball SE comes in two different sizes and a variety of colors. The two sizes are perfect‚ depending on if you have a small or large dog. Is Cheerble Wicked Ball a Good Value? I usually go for the cheaper toys since they don’t last long. However‚ the Cheerble Wicked Ball is definitely worth the extra money. The ball is extremely durable and I can’t remember the last time a toy entertained my pets as much as this one. An added bonus is that you don’t have to constantly and repeatedly throw the ball for them. Check Price on Cheerble FAQ   Can the Cheerble Wicked Ball be used outdoors? Absolutely! Given that the ball is durable and waterproof‚ the toy can easily withstand the outdoor elements. However‚ if you have longer grass‚ the ball may have some difficulty moving around compared to flat carpet or hardwood. How do I charge the Wicked Ball? The Cheerble Wicked Ball comes with a charging cable. The metal port is inserted directly in the center and will flash to confirm charging. The manual does say to use caution when inserting the charger and emphasizes the importance of a 90° angle when plugging in as it does seem a little fragile. Our Experience With Cheerble Wicked Ball SE When it comes to dog toys‚ my husband and I are very particular. Our small dog‚ Tater Tot‚ has the bad habit of eating things that aren’t necessarily edible. A few years ago‚ she decided to eat the stuffing from one of her dog toys and earned herself an expensive‚ emergency surgery to remove a blockage. So‚ since then she has limited access to toys and can only have ones that are labeled as durable. The Cheerble Wicked Ball SE has honestly been such a great experience with no complaints. While the version I received was meant for small dogs‚ my entire crew is completely obsessed with this toy. My four cats and two other dogs love this ball. I can’t even hide it from them while it’s charging without one of them whining for it. My pets are even happy to play with it even if it’s not jumping and moving around. My biggest dog‚ Annie‚ loves to chew and roll around with the ball. This version is meant for small dogs‚ so it is not technically made for a dog her size. I did become a little nervous about choking as it is a small ball. If Annie were any bigger‚ I probably would be hesitant to leave her with it unattended. Cheerble does make it clear to supervise your pets while they play with the Wicked Ball‚ but I think that should be a standard rule for any toy. My other dog‚ Oakley‚ who normally is indifferent to toys‚ was seen prancing around with the ball flaunting it to her siblings. The battery life is good and will last around an hour of play. This does vary based on the mode the ball is set on and how much interaction it has. I was surprised by how much the ball could move‚ shake‚ and jump around. The bright colors that flash with movement make my pets even more excited. The version we got is Cheerble’s new and improved Wicked Ball SE. The company reports enhanced durability‚ 40% bouncier‚ new textured surface‚ reduced noise‚ and lighter weight compared to the first generation Wicked Ball. I have no complaints when it comes to this ball and I think my pets would agree. As a veterinary technician‚ I appreciate the added mental stimulation the toy provides. The durability gives us peace of mind since Tater Tot has a toy she absolutely loves without the risk of ingestion. The Wicked Ball SE has officially replaced all the toys in our home and has made a great addition to our pet’s playtime. Check Price on Cheerble Conclusion The Cheerble Wicked Ball SE is a stellar product in the world of interactive pet toys. The ball is designed with safety and pet stimulation in mind. Enhanced durability combined with unpredictable movements means endless play for our pets without the risk of breaking apart. While pricier than traditional pet toys‚ the value speaks for itself. The ball was designed to last. Some pets become bored with toys after the initial excitement‚ but I’ve seen firsthand that the interactive modes keep pets entertained and wanting more. The durability‚ flashy colors‚ exceptional battery life‚ and fun movements all combine to create your pet’s next favorite toy. The post Cheerble Wicked Ball Review 2023: Pros‚ Cons‚ &; Our Verdict appeared first on Pet Keen.