California just announced their plans to eliminate gas-powered cars. By 2035, they will make it illegal to sell a gas-powered car in the state of California. As usual, California is leading the nation in delusional thinking.

This is not just my opinion. James Freeman, writing in The Wall Street Journal, says, “The government of California can issue as many proclamations and prohibitions as it wants against gasoline-powered vehicles. No doubt the Biden administration will enjoy the ocean of tax dollars now earmarked for low-intensity energy sources. But reality will stubbornly remain.”

His source of information for this statement is a new report about to be released from the Manhattan Institute. Mark Mills takes on the “dangerous delusion” of a global energy transition that eliminates the use of fossil fuels. Surveying energy markets and public policy around the world, Mr. Mills asks readers to “consider that years of hypertrophied rhetoric and trillions of dollars of spending and subsidies on a transition have not significantly changed the energy landscape.”

He notes: “Civilization still depends on hydrocarbons for 84% of all energy, a mere two percentage points lower than two decades ago. Solar and wind technologies today supply barely 5% of global energy. Electric vehicles still offset less than 0.5% of world oil demand.”

To make matters worse, the demand for energy is growing exponentially. Mills explains: “One can begin with a reality that cannot be blinked away: energy is needed for everything that is fabricated, grown, operated, or moved. . . digital devices and hardware – the most complex products every produced at scale – require, on average, about 1,000 times more energy to fabricate, pound for pound, than the products that dominated the 20^th century. It takes nearly as much energy to make one smartphone as it does one refrigerator, even though the latter weights 1,000 times more. The world produces nearly 10 times more smartphones a year then refrigerators. Thus, the global fabrication of smartphones now uses 15% as much energy as does the entire automotive industry, even though a car weighs 10,000 times more than a smartphone. The global Cloud, society’s newest and biggest infrastructure, uses twice as much electricity as the entire nation of Japan. And then, of course, there are all the other common, vital needs for energy, from heating and cooling homes to producing food and delivering freight.”

“Advocates of a carbon-free world underestimate not only how much energy the world already uses, but how much more energy the world will yet demand. . . In America, there are nearly as many vehicles as people, while in most of the world, fewer than 1 in 20 people have a car. More than 80% of the world population has yet to take a single flight.”

Perhaps you’re under the delusion that wind and solar power will someday replace fossil fuels. Maybe you argue they have made huge strides forward in their competitiveness with fossil fuels. Mr. Mills begs to differ: “Claims that wind, solar, and electric vehicles have reached cost parity with traditional energy sources or modes of transportation are not based on evidence. Even before the latest period of rising energy prices, Germany and Britain – both further down the grid transition path than the U.S. – have seen average electricity rates rise 60 – 110% over the past two decades. The same pattern is visible in Australia and Canada. It’s also apparent in U.S. states and regions where mandates have resulted in grids with a higher share of wind/solar energy.”

Government has tried to hide the real cost of this energy grid transition with taxpayer-funded subsidies that were intended to make alternative energy cheaper. Added up over the past two decades, the cumulative subsidies across the world for biofuels, wind, and solar approach about $5 trillion. What has that $5 trillion produced? Only about 5% of global energy needs.

There is also the energy storage issue to consider. Unless we can store the energy produced by wind and solar, we are always vulnerable to periods of brown-outs and black-outs when energy demand is high. Mills goes on: “Storing electricity itself – the output from solar/wind machines – remains extremely expensive despite the vaunted battery revolution. Lithium batteries a Nobel-winning invention, are some 400% better than lead-acid batteries in terms of energy stored per unit of weight (which is critical for vehicles). And the costs for lithium batteries have declined more than 10-fold in the past two decades. Even so, it costs at least $30 to store the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil using lithium batteries. That alone explains why, regardless of mandates and subsidies, batteries aren’t a solution at grid scales for days, never mind weeks, of storage.”

There is a national security issue at stake here beyond the needs of addressing climate change. While countries like the U.S., Great Britain, and Germany are busy trying to lower their carbon footprints, hostile regimes in China, Russia, and Iran are ignoring the issue and capitalizing on the delusions of the West to increase defense spending and fossil fuel profits. While we shut down coal plants and stop drilling for oil, these countries are building new coal plants and drilling deeper for oil reserves. Not only will this negate any progress we may make in eliminating carbon emissions, it will make us more vulnerable to these hostile regimes. We need only look at what’s happening right now in Ukraine to see the real price of our green energy delusions.

In medicine, we have a phrase that describes this situation: “The cure is worse than the disease.”

Author’s note: Have a different opinion? Let me know your thoughts.

It looks like soon you’ll be able to get a new Covid booster along with your new flu booster. As the Covid pandemic evolves into a Covid endemic, just like influenza, this annual Covid booster was predictable.

Jared S. Hopkins, writing in The Wall Street Journal, tells us the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has cleared use of retooled Covid-19 vaccines that target the latest versions of Omicron variant, in preparation for a fall booster campaign that could start soon. This action by the FDA permits people 12 years and older to receive an additional shot of the vaccine from Pfizer, and people 18 and older to receive a Moderna booster at least two months after their most recent dose.

This marks the first changes to the composition of the Covid-19 vaccines since their distribution began in the U.S. in December, 2020. These new boosters are widely available, rather than limited to people who are at high risk of developing severe disease, as earlier booster authorizations had done. They are designed to better defend against the elusive Omicron variant dominant in the U.S. by targeting Omicron’s BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants, as well as the original strain.

Should everyone get these new boosters?

No doubt many people will resist seeking another shot, partly out of weariness with getting repeat inoculations. Others may believe additional boosters are not necessary since the lethality of the disease has diminished and most people experience symptoms not much worse than the common cold. Yet influenza may seem to be similar in its presentation, but between 20,000 and 60,000 Americans die of influenza in an average year.

Another reason for hesitancy may be that the FDA cleared the doses without waiting for results from the kinds of clinical trials conducted before earlier authorizations. Experts say trials aren’t necessary to be confident the vaccines will work safely, because the changes simply update proven shots. The process is similar to the development of annual flu shots, which are given without testing them in people. “The FDA has extensive experience with strain changes for annual influenza vaccines,” said Peter Marks, who heads the FDA’s vaccines division. “We are confident in the evidence supporting these authorizations.”

Before people can begin to receive the shots, a panel of vaccine experts advising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is scheduled to meet soon to discuss the FDA’s authorization. If they approve, booster shots will soon be available in hospitals, doctor’s offices and pharmacies at no cost.

While these boosters may be a boon to protecting people from the latest Covid variants, skepticism about recommendations of health officials abound. Some 57% of vaccinated people surveyed in July said they wouldn’t get a booster because they believe their initial vaccination or a prior infection provided enough protection, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Meanwhile, 52% said they just didn’t want a shot.

Personally, I believe the decision about this Covid booster will be similar to the decision regarding the annual influenza booster. Those of us who are getting up in years, and those with significant cardiovascular or pulmonary disease, should probably get both boosters. I recommend you confer with your doctor before deciding what’s best for you.

How can a vaccine, that is supposed to keep soldiers healthy, be a threat to military readiness? When a vaccine mandate forces soldiers to choose between their health and their military service.

It seems our military is not exempt from the woke policies of the Biden Administration and the nation’s military readiness is at stake. That’s not my opinion; it’s the opinion of Maj. Gen. James O. Eifert, commanding general of the Florida National Guard. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, General Eifert is sounding the alarm on vaccine mandates that are devastating our military.

Just how bad is this situation?

General Eifert says, “I’ve never been more worried about the future of the U.S. armed forces than I am right now. I say that as a concerned citizen who has served for more than 40 years, the last three of which have been as the adjutant general of the Florida National Guard. One of the military’s most foundational duties is to recruit and retain men and women willing to defend their country. Unfortunately, current federal policy is rendering that goal unattainable.”

How did it come to this?

The Defense Department has implemented a rule that all service members receive a Covid vaccine. The Army secretary’s deadline for all reserve component soldiers to be vaccinated expired on June 30, leaving almost 40,000 National Guard members and 20,000 Army Reservists nationwide at risk of involuntary termination.

General Eifert says, “My Florida National Guard formations face the potential loss of about 1,000 unvaccinated guardsmen out of 12,000 total airmen and soldiers. That leaves us shorthanded as our state enters hurricane season, while more than 1,000 soldiers and airmen are also deployed on federal missions around the world.”

Was this really necessary?

General Eifert tells us that since March, 2020, even before the vaccine was developed, none of his military units suffered any reductions in readiness as a direct result of the virus. The only loss in military readiness we’ve experienced has been the result of quarantine requirements, wholesale base lockdowns, travel restrictions and training cancellations. Sounds like the cure is worse than the disease!

To make matters worse, the benefits of the vaccine are limited, especially in healthy young men and women. Experience with the vaccines has informed us that many people still get infected with the virus, though their disease symptoms are usually less severe. This is especially true with the latest Covid variants of Omicron, which is more infectious, but less deadly than earlier virus variants.

Statistics bear this out. Eifert tells us there have been only 95 U.S. service-member deaths attributed to Covid from a total military population of 2.154 million. That’s a mortality rate of 0.004% – and a case survival rate of 99.98%, based on the 421,807 infections the Pentagon has reported as of July 1, this year. By contrast, the military’s suicide rate during 2020 was about seven times as great (0.027%).

To make matters worse, we are not only losing service members who refuse to be vaccinated, we are failing to meet recruiting goals. General Eifert tells us only 23% of recruitment-age Americans meet eligibility requirements, and fewer still are even interested. He asks the pertinent question: “Why should we further damage military readiness by discharging honorably serving military members and shunning unvaccinated new recruits?”

With the risk of Covid this small, and recruitment needs unmet, it would seem the Defense Department has forgotten its primary objective – defending our country.