Address to 2024 Drake Energy Security Forum

The following is a summary of Nick’s October 15, 2024 address at the Drake Energy Security Forum.

It’s awesome to be here, at the birthplace of the modern oil industry. It’s fascinating to think that shortly after Edwin Drake struck oil here, the company I work for, CNX Resources, was just getting started.

For 160 years we have been at the forefront of Appalachia’s energy and economic evolution, and today, we continue to be a regional innovator.

That term – regional innovator – plays to the conference theme this year, “At the Crossroads: Navigating America’s Energy & Climate Dilemmas”. I don’t see a dilemma as much as a crucial need for all stakeholders to accept the realities of the situation.

I’ve got a lot to say and cover, so let’s get into it. You may not agree with everything I have to say today. But, as pointed out earlier, the purpose of this forum is to engage in civil discourse. Let’s have some fun.

Climate, Renewable Fuel Sources, and Geopolitics

Let’s talk climate. Weather is in the news with the recent tragic storms.

Climate change is happening. It’s been happening for millions of years. It will be happening as long as there is a planet Earth. And we know that well before the start of the Industrial Revolution, when human beings figured out how to harness the magical power of that carbon atom, the extent of climate change had been much more severe than what we’ve seen the past couple hundred years.

Three quick examples. Around 5000 years ago the Florida Keys were completely underwater for substantial periods of time because of higher sea levels. In the time of Christ in the Mediterranean region, both sea levels and temperatures were significantly higher than today. And then around 1000 AD, there were Vikings in Greenland doing what? Farming.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide has indeed increased since the start of the Industrial Revolution. It’s gone from about 200 parts per million up to about 400 parts per million today. Think of those proportions as follows. For a college football stadium holding 100,000 fans, a 200 parts per million concentration of visiting fans is only 20 spectators in the stands. 99,980 are home fans. If you double the concentration of visiting fans to 400 parts per million, the number of visiting fans has doubled. It’s gone up from 20 to now 40 fans. Has the atmosphere of that crowd changed to any observable extent?

And despite CO2 levels going up over the past couple hundred years, climate-related deaths globally have plummeted. They’re down 95 percent over the past century. And we know that more people die globally from extreme cold, many more than from extreme heat.

Innovation with the shale revolution allowed natural gas to displace enormous amounts of coal in the power grid, reducing CO2 emissions tremendously the past 30 years.

That wasn’t from government, mandates, regulation, and it certainly wasn’t from wind and solar. It was the private sector innovating with disruptive technology in places like Pennsylvania. Yes, Pennsylvania. Since 2005, using natural gas on our grid dropped state CO2 emissions over 40 percent.

Yet while US and PA carbon emissions are down since 2000, India’s are up 150+% and China’s are up 200+%. The developing world uses more coal than ever. Can’t blame them. They’re after reliable and affordable energy access and who doesn’t want that?

And so-called renewables, that’s false advertising. There’s nothing renewable about wind or solar. Wind and solar are not zero carbon or zero emitting. The supply chain life cycle assessment of what it takes to produce a kilowatt hour from solar or wind betrays huge carbon footprints.

Wind and solar also suffer from very low energy density, making it impossible to scale without ecological damage. The amount of wind turbines or the acreage of solar panels needed to pursue supposed net zero plans would require blanketing entire states with either solar farms or wind farms,

And it brings collateral damage with it. Offshore wind and whale kills along the East Coast of the United States. And onshore wind, the worst thing that happened to birds since the cat.

These realities are why it’s concerning to see what elites and experts are forcing upon society and economies when it comes to policy cures or medicines to ‘tackle’ climate change.

The consequences of those medicines or cures may be significantly worse for economies and quality of life across the globe than the actual symptoms or ailments of climate change.

Consider the carbon dioxide emissions tied to wind and solar and electric vehicles and their supply chains I mentioned.

First you need massive mining and movement of surface area to get to the requisite materials , requiring substantial carbon-fueled energy, transportation, and equipment.

And most of that must happen in faraway lands. Secondly, once you’ve mined the stuff, you need to concentrate it into purified feedstocks. That is going to require even more carbon energy. Again, most occurring in foreign locations.

Once concentrated, all those feedstocks come together in a manufacturing facility to start building the components for wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicle batteries. Those factories are likely powered by a carbon-based grid, often coal-fired.

Then all those components are transported to the United States and Europe. Whether via ships, rail, trucks, or planes, what’s going to fuel that transportation? Yes, carbon-based energy.

Oh, and constructing the wind turbine towers and the solar arrays requires concrete, clearing trees for pads, clearing right of way, and metal transmission lines for the kilowatt hours. All carrying significant carbon footprints.

And once everything’s installed, if the wind doesn’t blow or the sun isn’t shining, often the case in places like Pennsylvania, you need a reliable back up, which will be some form of carbon-based power.

Add all that up. A very substantial carbon dioxide footprint for wind and solar. And a legitimate accounting of the life-cycle CO2 footprint for EVs will show they are materially higher than the internal combustion engine.

That’s why the consequences will not be positive ones with pursuing the policy medicines that have been prescribed. The promised cure ends up being worse than the vilified disease.

But there are other negative consequences. Wind and solar are not cheap as a foundation of an electric grid. We see proof everywhere. Wind projects are failing because of poor economics and higher costs.

Another negative consequence is general inflation. General inflation is raging as economies and societies embarked on these net zero follies because the latter causes the former. Increase the cost of energy and you create energy scarcity, you reduce reliability of energy, and that will adversely affect the cost of everything in society because everything utilizes energy.

None of this is good news for consumers or the middle class or businesses.

Our balance of trade also suffers, because China has built a stranglehold on the supply chains to manufacture an electric vehicle or a wind turbine or a solar array. The US and EU simply cannot mine, process, or manufacture enough of the stuff needed for a net zero plan relying on wind, solar, and EVs. Ridiculous to assume so.

There are dire geopolitical aspects to climate policies. They enable bad actors across the map.

Russia now enjoys energy leverage over Europe because of EU climate polices. Europe purposely shut down domestic energy sources of natural gas and nuclear. Coupled with a mad dash to wind and solar, which failed to deliver. That created an energy imbalance, and it was filled by Russian natural gas through pipelines like Nord Stream. Putin saw leverage and was emboldened to invade Ukraine not once, but twice.

China has been gifted enormous leverage from western climate polices. Again. it controls the supply chains of wind, solar and EVs. And now China can confidently eye up Taiwan.

How about OPEC. The US shale revolution slayed OPEC. But the climate alarmists with their policies dutifully resurrected OPEC because we need Mideast oil to flow to keep the price of oil down. Crazy.

Crazier with Iran. Iran knows its oil is now necessary due to climate policies. We appease, loosen sanctions, and fly pallets of cash to them on a carbon fueled plane. The debacle reaps hundreds of billions of dollars for Iran, which it uses to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, and nuclear weapon capability.

Totalitarian Venezuela is yet another example suffering from the same root cause: western climate policies. It went from a pariah and under heavy sanction, to where we ease sanctions, respect sham elections, tolerate kidnapping of our citizens by the government, and ask Chevron to flow billions of dollars of Venezuelan crude.

But the biggest tragedy: individuals in the developing world without access to reliable, affordable energy. Climate alarmist policies ensure they continue to be denied reliable and affordable energy. What gives anyone the moral authority to do so?

What’s really behind these policies? They make no sense from a chemistry, physics, math, and economics perspectives. I think I know; it’s an adversary lurking externally and internally.

The natural enemy of western republican democracy is the Left. Communist, socialist, totalitarian, or some combination. The Left benefits from climate policies on an unprecedented scale.

External vanguards of the Left are coauthors of our climate policies. It’s been well established that Russian interests are huge funders behind the Ban Fracking movement. Climate polices force a transition from energy independence of the West to an energy dependency on totalitarian nations of the Left.

But the adversary is found internally here as well. The Left despises the individual and his or her freedom to choose for themselves. The Left wants to tear away that freedom.

And then place that decision making power in the hands of a higher authority. A religion or ideology. The state. The expert class. Or a toxic cocktail of all three.

What better way to achieve the aims of the Left than by controlling energy? If you wanted to control society and the individual, but you could only choose one industry or sector to achieve it by, what would you choose? Health care or maybe finance or maybe tech? Not bad. But I would choose energy. Because the kilowatt hour, HP, and BTU touch everything in a modern economy.

If you control the kilowatt hour, the HP, and the BTU, you control decision making. Folks, climate policies are not about atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. They are not about weather. They are about control.

If my premise is correct, one would see climate policies bleeding into things beyond the generation grid. We are seeing just that.

Consider food. What you can and should eat is being attacked by everyone from radical environmentalists to the United Nations. Now experts demand we consider the carbon footprints of foods. There is a hit list. Red meat, ice cream, beer. So if you like those foods, I’ve got some bad news that might be coming your way when these climate policies continue on their inevitable march toward control.

Driving is another front in the fight. What better expression of personal freedom than the personal automobile? But with EV mandates, the individual now is reliant on the availability of the grid and when and where you may charge. Climate policies aim to transition the personal car from a quality-of-life booster for the masses to a luxury of the 1%. Another form of control.

Did you hear of 15-minute cities? It’s a movement found in climate policies to ultimately force individuals to live in urban areas within so many minutes of walking distance to public transportation. Because that would be the only mode of transportation available. And to force living in small apartments versus larger individual homes.

Climate policy is manifesting in emergency powers. Climate emergency days that you now see in California. When it’s hot, don’t charge your EV or run your air conditioner or open your business. Grid emergency. Created by climate policies.

The end goal is for the individual to lose control over their own decision making. Instead, trust in the higher authority, the government or the expert. In line with the ideology of the Left.

They’ll take care of you and tell you what to do. But history informs what happens once the Left controls.

What is an energy industry, Keystone State, and American to do? There is a quite exciting path if you assess. I admit I have a somewhat contrarian view versus the common consensus. Let me share my thoughts and see what you think.

The Evolving Energy Landscape

First, I agree with certain aspects of the common consensus.

  • Policy and key sectors of the global economy continue to pursue lower CO2 emissions; maybe not zero but much, much lower than current.
  • Policy is mandating an electrification of everything, resulting in unprecedented demand growth for the power grid. The most recent example is data centers and AI.
  • The ability of wind and solar to deliver uninterruptible, reliable, and low-cost energy at scale to feed the growing grid demand is extremely suspect (to be kind).

Natural gas should be the clear winner across energy sources to meet higher energy demand at lower CO2 intensity.

Better yet, the Appalachian basin and Pennsylvania, with the Marcellus and Utica shales, is the premier natural gas deposit on the planet.

If all this comprised the complete analysis and game board, one would rightly conclude that the Appalachian basin is poised to flourish, and one would have expected these results to have already manifested in current market metrics.

Yet that has not occurred. And I believe it will not occur without a shift in the situational assessment by the industry, capital markets, and policy makers. We are misreading things.

This is where I diverge from the common consensus.

I believe:

  • Policy across governments and bureaucracies prohibits the smooth allocation of capital into infrastructure to link Appalachian nat gas to growing grid demand. Attempts to navigate the policy roadblocks are met with a coordinated lawfare campaign that strangles with litigation. The idea of a new pipeline to provide Appalachian energy to Boston is ridiculously obvious. But such a pipe will not be allowed to be built; it is counter to that ideology that permeates a system from which approval must be secured to proceed.
  • Supply from the Appalachian basin is experiencing a step-change evolution with the deep Utica. CNX has pioneered this horizon, and we see it delivering a new level of supply magnitude (higher) and response time (quicker) for the basin.
  • When a basin establishes higher potential supply levels, delivers quicker supply response times, and is artificially bottled-up due to the inability to invest in logical infrastructure, there will be in-basin price consequences. Unless something creates new demand or take-away, a sustained upside for in-basin pricing will remain elusive.
  • The industry looks to LNG export as being the answer. However, to unlock the next wave of Appalachian supply, LNG requires more pipes to move our product to coastal LNG terminals. Even setting aside the infrastructure constraints, a true step-change in LNG export capacity is a nonstarter over the next decade due to policy and legal constraints, the most recent example being the LNG permit ‘pause.’
  • Now many point to growing grid demand to power AI data centers as the answer. After all, such demand in-basin doesn’t require new long-haul pipes or large-scale LNG facilities. But the tech industry who buys the power to feed the data center economy will demand the power come from something that offers a low/net zero CO2 footprint. They don’t want just low-cost and reliable power. They demand low-cost, reliable, and low/net zero CO2 power.

Those realities may depress at first blush, but there is an exciting path available from the herd mentality. What would that look like? Well, it’s been what CNX has been up to.

There are key industrial sectors of today’s economy that are growing and have an appetite for energy. Hydrogen and the IRA, Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), power grid and AI Data Centers, and transportation fleets.

Energy to the above sectors must meet certain criteria. The following ‘boxes’ must be ‘checked’: reliable, uninterruptible, low-cost, short supply chain, ready now, net zero or low CO2, and the ability to demonstrate no harm to local/regional ecosystems.

None of the touted energy solutions check all the boxes. Wind and solar – we covered those fatal shortcomings already. Nuclear has lots of excitement but recent experience is not promising. Ultra-high cost to build, as evidenced by Georgia Power; not ready now and will take years to build.

Natural gas? Many advantages and boxes checked, but one key shortcoming of not net-zero CO2.

So, what energy solutions would check all the boxes? CNX and Appalachia offer a few.

The first is captured coal mine methane, or CMM. As determined by the US Department of Energy, CMM is a carbon-negative product that reduces the methane emissions entering the atmosphere.

When CMM is custom blended with the Marcellus and Utica, companies like CNX can deliver to customers an energy supply with the exact carbon intensity desired. A CMM blend product has a fraction of the cost of new nuclear and offers scalability, reliability, and supply chain benefits that are far superior to wind and solar.

But our solutions are not limited to CMM. Technologies now ready for deployment allow us to harness the unique characteristics of the deep Utica to manufacture low-cost, low-carbon intensity CNG and LNG on-pad, serving markets beyond those linked by existing pipelines.

These products can meet those growing sectors of energy demand.

  • Hydrogen production at scale requires enormous amounts of reliable energy. CNX’s CMM blended with shale gas is ready-now to provide net-zero hydrogen at scale. This, when coupled with the IRA, will kickstart hydrogen production across Appalachia.
  • The creation of SAF to decarbonize aviation has remained elusive as emerging alternatives to existing jet fuels have failed to meet scalability and cost challenges. CMM blended with shale gas provides a net zero CO2 solution. Our project at the Pittsburgh International Airport will be the first SAF plant at scale utilizing CMM.
  • The re-shoring of American industry is another opportunity. CNX is partnering with NewLight Technologies to provide CMM as a critical feedstock into their manufacturing process that creates revolutionary, net-zero, biodegradable, plastics-substitute products. Manufacturers looking to decarbonize and de-risk supply chains will look to Appalachia and CNX.
  • AI will increase energy demand and Appalachia is uniquely positioned to benefit from this growth due to its proximity to CMM, short supply chains to shale gas, and legacy infrastructure. But the AI economy needs energy solutions at scale, today. Data center developers are logical customers for CMM blends and CNG/LNG.
  • Pad-level CNG and LNG are poised to disrupt transportation fleets served by diesel and gasoline. Our solutions are reliable, local, and ready-now to improve emissions and economics by converting away from heavier hydrocarbons.
    The opportunity for this basin is exciting. End markets are just starting to realize it. We are about to experience a transformation of Appalachia.

Real solutions to real problems require policy rooted in objective fact.

There is the need for good macro policy, what we discussed, but also good regional policy.

Radical Transparency

On that note I want to wrap up with an approach CNX is working on to change the paradigm on the local and regional level – we call it Radical Transparency.

An air quality monitor at the CNX RHL37 well pad in Greene County, PA. Visit www.cnxradicaltransparency.com to learn more.

What is it? Data-driven monitoring, analysis and transparency to guide policy that protects the public and recognizes the important role of energy in Pennsylvania and Appalachia.

We built and rolled this out with help from Governor Shapiro and PA Department of Environmental Protection.

We are monitoring air and water quality, waste, and methane in and around our operations.

We are open sourcing data for all to see in real time. This is critical. We can’t continue to hold our data in a black box and release it on our terms to a limited audience. You can find it on the web right now.

The data is collected independently by an accredited third party.

And the PADEP is provided this data unabridged at the same time as it is provided to us – further transparency and confidence.

Simple but powerful. Without real time transparency, industry data will always be questioned and dismissed. So, let’s provide it.

We’re just getting started with this effort so expect to hear much more about it.

For daily insights and commentary from Nick Deiuliis, follow Nick on X at @NickDeiuliis and on LinkedIn.

Harvesting History: Farmer Activism is Democracy’s Early Warning System

By Nick Deiuliis

Elites have a long history of looking down on and patronizing the working classes. It’s a sad social truth that extends back to America’s founding. Europe’s history of confrontation between the two classes stretches back centuries.

Today’s elites labeling the working class as Deplorables, Flyover Country, and Bible-and-Gun-Clingers is nothing new. It seems the more things change in America and Europe the more they stay the same.

You see the self-perpetuating dynamic with perhaps the original working-class demographic: farmers.

One of America’s first confrontations between the working class and elites was western Pennsylvania farmers initiating the Whiskey Rebellion during George Washington’s presidency. Indeed, farmers have a proud history of being first within the working class to confront excessive government control and elites looking to disenfranchise citizens.

And true to form, farmers across Europe are once again raising the alarm for the rest of society when it comes to loss of individual rights and constriction of liberty. Because the Left, the radical environmental theocracy, and the bureaucrat just can’t stop messing with society’s doers.

With so much at stake, a refresh of farmers’ movements in the United States and a discussion of the current farmers’ uprising in Europe is warranted.

American Farmers: A History of Political Activism

The latter half of the 1800s saw American farmers achieve a new, higher level of political activism that had national implications lasting to this day.1 It all started with disruptive technology.

The 19th century brought unprecedented economic advancement and groundbreaking technology, combining to drastically affect industry and agriculture. Steamships and railroads were game changers.

Along with new, advanced machinery and growing foreign trade, they disrupted everything across the American economy, from the factory floor to the farm field.

But net-net, manufacturing and urban areas benefited much more from the innovation and economic revolution than agriculture and rural areas. The individual farmer and small town were especially hard hit. Cities got bigger, industry became more profitable, but individual farmers found themselves struggling more.

Despite the innovations, farming still lacked scale. And competition was global when it came to demand and pricing for crops. Farmers were affected by global developments out of their control for revenue but had costs set by an inefficient local or regional market. The worst of both worlds created a financial pinch of low, at-risk revenue and high cost.

Adding to the farmer’s difficulty was a reliance on credit and a run-up in debt. As well as having to carry the risks of crop storage and transportation, lease rents for land, and speculators preying on micro-markets.

Indeed, the American farmer was facing seemingly impenetrable headwinds in the latter half of the 1800s.

Farmers decided it was time to unite and become activists to support their cause. Initially they looked to the labor movement in larger cities as the model to follow. The industrial labor unions were posting some impressive successes, so why not copy the playbook?

But farming is not the same as, say, coal mining or steelmaking. Thus, farmers quickly realized they would need their own brand of activism.

Just after the Civil War, the Patrons of Husbandry, also known as the Grange, appeared in the rural South and West.

It was the first national political movement for farmers—focused on setting rate caps on rail rates, which were a key point of contention and major financial risk for farmers in the South and West. The organization is alive and well today, with a Washington, D.C. headquarters and roughly 1,700 local chapters across America’s farming communities.

I feed you all!” lithograph by American Oleograph Co., Milwaukee, 1875.
(Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division)

After the Grange came the Greenback Party, focusing on addressing the problems of currency and inflation that troubled farmers. The party advocated for a break from the gold standard, fiat money, and a cheaper dollar, reflecting aspects of today’s modern monetary theory, or MMT. It was hoped that such an approach would grow farm revenue while making debt more manageable.2

Although the Greenback Party ran presidential candidates over three national elections (1876, 1880, and 1884), it wasn’t very successful politically. But it was quite successful in calling attention to the shortcomings of the US monetary system.

Around the same time of the Greenback Party, the Farmers Alliances in the Northwest and South were created. The idea was to unite farmers, becoming a force in established party politics and taking on the Gilded Age. The Southern Alliance focused on commandeering the dominant Democratic Party by electing candidates to run for state offices and for Congress. While in the Northwest, the Farmers Alliance started to behave as a separate third party that was populist.

The fourth and most impactful farmers movement was the Populists, centered in the West and also having support in the South. It was known as the People’s Party, the Populists, or the Populist Party. Lack of rainfall got things moving as drought devastated farmers in the Plains in the late 1880s and farms began to fail.

Farmers felt that business interests of railroads and bankers were contributing to, and feeding off, their plight and wanted to do something about it. That started a passionate movement, with followers preaching populism. The People’s Party candidate for president, James Weaver, won 22 Electoral College votes in the 1892 election, winning four Western states outright and winning electoral votes in two others. The party eventually merged into the Democratic Party in the next presidential election of 1896.

Although the People’s Party ultimately died, many of its ideas lived on. Subsequent policies in the coming years affecting conservation, trusts, railroads, and banking trace roots back to the populism of the farmers in the late 1800s. Including the creation of the Federal Reserve and many of President Teddy Roosevelt’s positions and accomplishments.

Europe’s Farmers Rise Up in 2024

The American farmer acting up in the late 1800s shares a lineage to European farmers acting up in 2024. Despite over a century and an ocean between the two, the movements have much in common.

Indeed, history is once again rhyming. Because today’s European farmers find themselves under siege by the arrogant elites.

Farmers are protesting across Europe. Spain, UK, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Netherlands, France, Portugal, Belgium, Germany, and Poland; from Ireland to Romania. It’s become a truly pan-European movement.

Videos populate the internet of tractors and convoys of farming equipment blocking roads. Clips abound of farmers dumping wine and feed in front of government buildings.

And the protestors aren’t just the farmers in these nations, but also organizations that are affiliated with farmers and agriculture. These institutions have joined what was originally a grassroots protest and morphed it into something bigger and better organized. The movements are starting to win elections, from the local to the national, as seen in the Netherlands.

Typical of governments run by elites, the continent’s bureaucracy is making things worse and not listening.

For example, Spain issued thousands of sanctions or violations against citizens under its Orwellian Citizen Security Law (commonly referred to as the Gag Law). Yet Barcelona was still brought to a standstill by the protests. And Spanish farmers dumped wine in front of a municipal water authority to protest water restrictions.

Italy saw 1,600 tractors poised to enter Rome. A Milan protest saw a cow join in the march. Italian farmers were angered by the expiration of an income tax exemption. Italy’s Prime Minister ultimately relented and agreed to not let the exemption expire.

Greece is experiencing protests everywhere, with a major highway to Athens blocked. The Netherlands got things rolling on the continent with the Farmers Citizens Movement.

Germany is an especially interesting case. The government desired to camouflage the cost of climate policies by using pandemic emergency funds to fund its forced energy transition. Nice idea, but the courts deemed it unlawful, reasoning quite correctly that climate change is not Covid. So, the government decided that the climate policies would continue and that the cost would be offset by removing diesel fuel subsidies to German farmers.

Following the increased costs to farmers from all the other climate polices within the German net zero nightmare, the removal of the subsidy was the last straw. It stripped away the pretend veneer of the myth that net zero plans don’t hurt anyone. German farmers reacted; roads were blocked, from Munich to Berlin, and the world viewed images of farm tractors blocking the approach to the iconic Brandenberg Gate in Berlin.

Farmers protest at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Jan. 15, 2024.
AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi

European politicians are finally paying attention and assuring that they feel for the farmers being victimized by the EU bureaucracy and the elites who run it.

Enter the Spin of the Elites

With the farmer protests undisputedly in plain view for all to see, those looking to divert attention from the root cause jump into spin mode.

Mainstream media and politicians caught off guard by the agrarian working-class protests now blame five root causes for catalyzing these protests: climate policies, inflation, food imports, the urban-rural divide, and economic inequality.

Which is sort of true, but not entirely. Because only the first item, climate change policies, is the true root cause. The remaining four are symptoms of those climate policies. Much like the farmer protestors themselves.

Certainly, the European Green Deal is wreaking havoc on European farmers. One of the primary objectives of climate policies is to make it uneconomic to farm, to provide food, and to eat. At least without government support and approval.

A goal of climate policies is empowering the bureaucrat and the state to dictate what one eats and how much. Under the false flag of saving the planet and the pleasant-sounding optical cloak of ‘sustainable farming.’

Farmers understand climate policies will soon eradicate them, just as such policies initially targeted (and are on their way to eradicating) the fossil fuel industry, power grid, and gasoline-powered cars across Europe. But the farmers aren’t taking this lying down; they refuse to make the same mistakes the complacent domestic energy industry, autoworkers unions, and consumer advocates made when allowing the radical environmental movement to roll over their interests.

What about the other cause of the protests identified by the elites: inflation, food imports, the urban-rural divide, and economic inequality?

Of course, the cost of living and inflation are up. Natural gas costs are up and so is fertilizer cost, which requires natural gas as a feedstock. Farming requires carbon-based energy and products like just about everything else in a modern economy. Thus, if you create energy scarcity while inflating energy costs through climate policies, you do the same for the inputs of farming. Farming soon becomes uneconomic.

The European mainstream media point to inflation and pin it on Russia invading Ukraine, which increased energy costs. Or the media blames drought, caused by (you guessed it) climate change, as raising costs.

Climate policies enabled Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and catalyzed general inflation. And yes, somewhere in Europe, right now, there will be drought. And somewhere in Europe, right now, there will be floods. It is a large continent, after all. But change in weather isn’t causing the existential plight of farmers or inflation. Despite media and academic experts wanting it to.

Farmers are hurt by food imports, but that is yet another symptom of climate change policies that dictate who makes and uses what on a global scale. Nations and the private sector within national economies ultimately lose autonomy under all variations of climate policies, from domestic energy industries to the domestic providers of food.

Climate policies are designed to make European-grown food too expensive. Which then has the desired effect of creating food scarcity. The food supply shifts from mostly European to mostly foreign providers, with Europeans now having to look to places like North Africa and Ukraine. Not exactly geopolitically stable places to get your dinner from.

Then there’s the popular elite excuse of the rural-urban divide stoking these protests. Which is ironic.

It’s not that urban elites don’t care about rural citizens. The government bureaucrat and the experts care greatly; the problem is they care about placing the rural, or what we call Flyover Country here in America, in economic chains and assigning them to a life of reliance on the state. Is it any wonder that rural Europeans tend to be more Euroskeptic? They are more astute than the urban elites give them credit for.

And when it comes to economic inequality, that fifth and final excuse proffered by the media as a cause of the farmer protests across Europe, one is hard pressed to think of anything that is a more regressive tax and regressive value appropriator than net zero plans and climate change policies.

Net zero plans radically catalyze income inequality. Like these other red-herring issues, the media wants to label economic inequality as a root cause of the farmer protests. Yet economic inequality is a symptom of the singular, true root cause: climate policies and their net zero scams.

Where Do Farmer Protests Go From Here?

One should be quite optimistic regarding the implications of European farmers standing up for themselves. Wider society stands to benefit three ways.

First, the farmer protests secured shorter-term successes when political leaders in nations such as France and Italy backed off planned moves that would’ve hit farmers disproportionately and that would have increased the cost of food. That’s created an incentive for farmers in other European nations to join the movement. Which is why the protests quickly spread across Europe, why they’ve extended into March and will likely continue. What’s good for the farmer is good for the consumer and the overall economy.

Second, the reaction of the farmers to climate change policies created a deterrent for European politicians and bureaucrats—forcing them to think twice before unleashing additional and similar draconian moves on other sectors of the European economy and society.

As they’ve done for centuries, the farmer has provided a great service to a host of others. This time their resistance and advocacy for common sense has stymied the consequences of climate policies for countless businesses and families.

Third, the farmer protest movement is winning elections, from the local to national level, as seen in the Netherlands. Candidates opposed to economy-killing climate policies trounced leftist parties obsessed about climate change, Code Red, and irreversible state control of the individual.

Despite these realities, a complicit media is still trying to cover for the bureaucrat in Europe. The overwhelming political upheaval and protest by farmers is precipitating a disingenuous discussion about who pays for climate change policies and net zero plans.

Which is nonsensical to debate, because everyone pays for climate change policies and net zero plans in a modern economy. It is not a question about who pays. Instead, it comes down to how transparent will the costs that are being borne by all be brought to light, and how soon.

Do people wake up before reaching the point of no return? Or do the policies become so embedded within an economy and society that it doesn’t matter what happens once society awakens?

European farmers have performed a noble duty for all Europeans. Following a rich history of American farmer movements. Let’s hope the current protests serve as both a moral and economic alarm clock to wake up society to the threat of climate change policies. Before it’s too late.

1. In the 1930s, historian John D. Hicks was a leading voice on populism and farmer movements.
2. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now.
3. Climate change is nothing new; been happening for millions of years.

A Rational Thinker’s Guide to Climate Change and Related Policies – Video Series

Part One: Diagnosing the Problem and Issue

In Part One of the “A Rational Thinker’s Guide to Climate Change and Related Policies” trilogy, Nick argues that the most pressing issue of our time is the inept policies being pushed upon society by the climate alarmist movement. When it comes to climate, energy, and environmental policy, we need to get back to rational thought as to what we know and what math and science are telling us. Nick examines Earth’s historical sea level and temperature changes, puts carbon dioxide emissions in perspective, discusses the carbon footprint of renewable energy sources (as well as their energy density and ecological impact), and more.

Part Two: Consequences of the Experts’ Cures

The “Rational Thinker’s Guide” trilogy continues in part two as the conversation turns to “what the elites and the expert classes are forcing upon society and economies when it comes to the cures or the medicines to help us deal or cope with climate change,” explains Nick.

Topics in part two include:

  • The supply chain and manufacturing of wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles.
  • Higher energy costs fueling inflation.
  • The geopolitical ramifications of present climate policies.
  • The developing world’s need for reliable and affordable energy.

Part Three:Forces Driving Present Climate Policies

The “Rational Thinker’s Guide” trilogy concludes in part three as Nick discusses what’s driving present climate policies: “When you think them through, from a chemistry or a physics or a math or an economics perspective, they make absolutely no sense,” says Nick.

Nick examines two sets of stakeholders benefitting from today’s climate policies, one being external and the other internal.

Topics in part three include:

  • OPEC and Russia benefiting from the U.S. and the West’s energy policy.
  • Venezuela’s aggression toward Guyana.
  • China’s stranglehold on every imaginable supply chain component of wind, solar, EVs, and batteries.
  • By controlling the availability and cost of energy, individuals lose individual freedom and their own decision-making ability.

 

For daily insights and commentary from Nick Deiuliis, follow Nick on X at @NickDeiuliis and on LinkedIn.

Natural Gas Development and Human Health in PA: Let’s Get the Facts Straight

By Nick Deiuliis

Poor policy favors superficial optics and follows manufactured storylines. Sound policy aims for substantive improvement and values rational decisions based on objective data. ​

Today a poor policy path is being promoted to harm a life-sustaining industry, manipulating concerns for human health as a convenient tool. It’s happening in Pennsylvania with its natural gas industry and local communities. ​

A ground game is churning that fabricates a storyline of the natural gas industry hurting residents: causing asthma, causing childhood cancers, and adversely impacting newborns. Making and broadcasting disgusting and baseless accusations to vilify and take down a noble and societally crucial endeavor, and in the process hurting the very region and communities the opportunists claim to work in the interests of.

This past August, the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) released the results of its studies on public health impacts from natural gas development in southwestern Pennsylvania. The studies left much to be desired; they suffered from fatal design flaws, many of them self-inflicted.

Yet the studies failed to find causation that would link natural gas development to health problems. The biggest ‘bombshell’ findings were a pair of very weak (and in one case, nonsensical) associations of natural gas development and two discrete health issues. No smoking guns identified.

But the rollout, presentation, and subsequent reporting of the findings (or lack thereof) were staged to garner maximum speculation, innuendo, and debasing of the natural gas industry. An all-too-common occurrence in media and academia today.

Mountain of Evidence Prior to the Pitt Studies

Over the years prior to the recent Pitt studies, substantial research has been conducted by numerous organizations on the impacts of natural gas development on public health. ​ The studies yielded disappointing results for those hoping to link shale development with human health risks: the expected risks have not materialized while efforts to find clear causation of natural gas development on health risks have come up short.

Consider the massive body of scientific work and measurement performed on point prior to this summer.

In the then-largest study of its kind, a 2015 Yale-led investigation found no evidence that trace contamination of organic compounds in drinking water wells near Marcellus shale development in northeastern Pennsylvania came from deep hydraulic fracturing shale horizons, underground storage tanks, well casing failures, or surface waste containment ponds.

The Yale study was followed by a Duke-led effort in 2017 to assess the impacts of natural gas development on groundwater in northern West Virginia. The Duke study concluded that there was a clear indication for the lack of groundwater contamination and subsurface impact from shale-drilling and hydraulic fracturing. And that trace metals associated with potential health impacts also showed no correlation with proximity to shale gas activities. ​

In 2018 the University of Cincinnati assessed the risk of methane making its way into groundwater in the Utica shale region of Ohio. The study found no relationship between methane concentration or source in groundwater and proximity to active gas well sites. ​ The study did, however, show a decrease in methane concentration in some regularly monitored wells during the study period. And that pH and conductivity did not change as shale gas drilling increased, nor with distance to the nearest shale gas well. Data did not indicate intrusion of frac fluids. ​ ​ ​

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Department of Health (DOH) were also busy in 2018, conducting studies and issuing reports that concluded Marcellus shale emissions did not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) limits and that the emissions are not expected to be harmful to healthy citizens. Estimated additional lifetime cancer risks were found to be very low from exposures to chemicals near natural gas activity (average levels of carcinogenic chemicals detected were generally similar to levels typically seen in ambient air in mixed urban, suburban, and rural areas across the US). And significantly fewer Air Quality Index (AQI) days worse than “Good” were measured at a monitoring site near natural gas facilities versus local comparison sites.

Penn State performed a 2018 study of groundwater in rural regions of Pennsylvania (Bradford County) where natural gas development is present. The study found only rare instances of possible gas contamination amid an overall trend of improving water quality despite heavy Marcellus shale development. The Penn State researchers saw possible contamination by natural gas in only 0.5% of the nearly 1,400 shale wells studied in heavily drilled Bradford County. The remaining water chemistry data highlighted that groundwater either improved or remained level from samples taken prior to the 1990s.

“The most interesting thing we discovered was the groundwater chemistry in one of the areas most heavily developed for shale gas – an area with 1400 new gas wells – does not appear to be getting worse with time, and may even be getting better,” said the director of Penn State’s Earth and Environmental Systems Institute.

2023 Pitt Studies Findings

The recent Pitt studies, spanning years and millions of dollars in expenditures, showed no ‘causation’ and a limited, highly questionable pair of ‘associations’ between natural gas development and two specific health issues. ​

In statistics, it is important to differentiate between ‘association’ and ‘causation.’ Two variables may be associated without a causal relationship. For example, there is a statistical association between the number of people who drowned by falling into a pool and the number of films Nicholas Cage appeared in for a given year (they indeed do show an association when tracked over a specific period of time). However, there is obviously no causal relationship.

Causation, on the other hand, means that the exposure produces the effect.

The Pitt studies found no causation from unconventional shale development to any of the health risks studied. Rather, researchers stretched to find two associations using skewed measurements, atypical definitions, and not attempting to account for key environmental and other factors that have proven demonstrable impacts on health.

The studies relied on a very limited proximity metric which doesn’t identify any exposure pathways, assumes constant emissions, and ignores critical factors like weather, work, air dispersion, lifestyle choices and known existing hazards. In addition, the studies assumed all natural gas wells “are created equal.”

Despite these flaws and limitations, the researchers acknowledged, “No evidence was found to support an association between exposures to [natural gas] activities and other environmental factors and the risk of leukemia, [central nervous system] tumors, and malignant bone tumors, including [Ewing’s Family of Tumors].” An extremely low lymphoma association correlation was found, underscoring the limited methodologies employed.

Asthma exacerbations were not linked with proximity to wells in pad preparation, drilling or hydraulic fracturing phases, regardless of how close wells were to homes or the number of wells nearby. Curiously, the only association claimed was to the natural gas production phase, when little to no activity occurs on the pad and emissions are minimal.

Ironically, Pitt’s own data on asthma in western Pennsylvania show a 50% decline of severe asthma cases between 2014 and 2020, even as natural gas production in the study region increased by over 200%. And across the study period, air quality in the Western Pennsylvania region has generally improved, with PM2.5 particulate matter, an asthma trigger, declining in the eight-county study area to well below NAAQS (EPA). Reviewing the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America’s “Most Challenging Places to Live with Asthma” informs that no region (including Pittsburgh) with natural gas development falls in the top 20, but Philadelphia, Allentown, and Harrisburg each do.

The Pitt study found birthweights for mothers living close to natural gas facilities remain in the normal healthy range, and no association to other adverse birth outcomes. The average birthweight was within the national average of 2400-4000 grams, and the greatest reduction in birthweight associated with natural gas well exposure was only 0.8% below the average, still well within healthy ranges. The researchers pointed out this “poses little health risks.” Interestingly, the odds of preterm birth were higher for those living with no natural gas activity near the mother’s residence during pregnancy.

Fatal Flaws of the Pitt Studies

The Pitt studies suffer from fundamental limitations in design and methods that, coupled with how the findings were presented to the public, raised anxiety unwarranted by actual data. ​

Researchers never visited shale gas sites, refused opportunities to do so, didn’t take air or water samples, or generate any new, original data or measurements. Statistical speculation trumped actual measurement.

If the researchers had spent time in the field, they would have seen how natural gas development is safe, well-regulated, and produced here better than anywhere else in the world.

In addition, the researchers relied solely upon statistical models and static locational information. They ignored key influential factors like actual emissions, wind, air dispersion, weather patterns, not to mention other potential environmental sources of exposure or outdoor hazards.

In a Question-and-Answer document regarding the research studies, the Pennsylvania DOH cautioned: “Establishing cause-effect relationship in environmental studies is very difficult. In many cases, it is also not generally feasible to be able to gather information on or understand all the possible factors that may impact health such as genetics, other exposures over a lifetime and lifestyle factors that may impact the health outcome in question.”

Consider the finding of association of natural gas development to lymphoma (0.006%-0.0084% association between diagnosis and well location) and no association with other cancers, including Ewing Sarcoma. The researchers primarily relied on the relation of the disease and how close sufferers lived to a fracking facility. Because data was limited to information found on birth certificates, the studies wrongfully assumed people lived at the same address for up to 29 years, while ignoring daily travel to locations like schools and workplaces. Such an approach would be laughable if it were not for the serious issues at hand.

The researchers admit the cancer study did not adequately account for variables the American Cancer Society lists as common lymphoma causes. These include genetic predisposition, infection, and exposure to radiation (such as the Canonsburg, Pennsylvania uranium waste facility where government monitoring has shown higher radiation levels).

The asthma assessment suffered from similar methodology flaws, failing to account for known asthma triggers including indoor and outdoor air pollutants, and refusing to present this data to the public. Nor did Pitt researchers explain why they labeled all asthma exacerbation cases as “severe” when the standard in medical studies is to categorize asthma exacerbation cases as mild, moderate, and severe. Without explanation, researchers broke these medical research norms. ​

The asthma data were limited to information found in medical records. Meaning that while smoking status was accounted for, a child’s exposure to secondhand smoke was not. Other known asthma triggers that were ignored, as identified by the CDC, include indoor and outdoor air pollutants, dust mites, mold, and pests. This leaves a huge gap in the potential other external factors that are known to trigger and exacerbate asthma.

Conflicts and Bias

Fundamental to the credibility of research is that researchers are, in fact, independent and unbiased.

One of the lead researchers for these studies publicly advocated for increasing mandatory setbacks from shale gas activities during a 2021 public forum. Unfortunately, the researcher drew conclusions well before finalizing these studies and chose to advocate for a public policy that is being pushed by anti-energy activists seeking to ban natural gas development.

Consider the money trail to assess who benefits from the baseless speculation that ensues. Little if any new, empirical research was conducted in the studies. Of the $2.584 million in taxpayer funds spent on these studies, $1.5 million went to pay salaries and benefits of the researchers, while another $932,000 went for various, unspecified administrative fees. ​

A concerning lack of transparency stokes more concern about how the study was performed. The researchers failed to adhere to the provisions of the taxpayer-funded contract, which required it to conduct a public forum on at least an annual basis to advise on the status of the ongoing studies and, by extension, gain valuable input from all stakeholders affected by the studies (“On at least an annual basis, the Principal Investigator(s) and study team shall present study progress to date in a public forum in conjunction with the Department.” Section E.2.B (Work Plan) of Attachment 1; Contract number 4400018535). Despite claiming that it would “welcome open and collaborative conversations with the board (External Advisory Board) when we have data to share,” it appears that no open or collaborative conversations were held with the External Advisory Board or interested public stakeholders.

The studies considered proximity to only one potential exposure, unconventional natural gas wells, rather than taking a holistic approach of examining whether other activities or exposures may have contributed to adverse health impacts. For example, the study region hosts two uranium disposal sites which have been demonstrated to have uranium concentrations in groundwater that are 22x higher than the EPA’s maximum concentration limits. Additionally, pesticide exposure has been linked to the development of some cancers, leading credible researchers to examine the presence of treated croplands in proximity to incidents of cancer. Yet, the cancer study did not adequately factor in these or other potential exposures, as well as personal genetic or lifestyle factors that may influence health outcomes.

With respect to asthma, the Pitt researchers excluded residents of the city of Pittsburgh from their study population even though Pittsburgh is within the study region and many of its residents live in proximity to shale gas wells. No rational reason is offered for excluding Pittsburgh residents. But well-established research has shown that the rate of asthma in urban areas is meaningfully higher than the rate in rural settings. By removing Pittsburgh’s population from the study group, including a control population that would be expected to have statistically higher asthma rates, the study skews the findings by failing to draw from the control population in a consistent manner across the study region.

How the Process Works

One must understand the process used in the Pitt studies (and many others like it from across the country) to judge the findings objectively. The reactions of various parties upon the release of the studies provide a window into how this type of research has been co-opted to fulfill predetermined views of the natural gas industry by those opposed to it. ​ The intent is to build a process that functions as a positive feedback loop, with each subsequent link reinforcing the pre-desired outcome or view.

The studies used two primary datasets. First, the researchers access medical information of patients with maladies of concern, in this case childhood cancers, asthma, and birth outcomes. In these medical datasets, a home address is associated with the patient.

Second, researchers use locations of natural gas wells, and dates when they were drilled, hydraulically fractured, and producing. ​

The researchers then determine the strength of the statistical relationship between the home address of the patient and the distance to a well pad (or other natural gas infrastructure of interest such as a compression station).

It’s a simple approach bordering on useless. It will fail to deliver any meaningful insight or solid conclusions beyond innuendo and rank speculation.

That’s why this methodology creates the need to use squishy descriptors such as ‘links’, ‘ties’, and ‘associations,’ but can’t be used to determine basic cause and effect. ​

The study authors say they welcome additional data and research. Yet regulatory agencies conduct extensive studies on actual air quality, radiation, and many other compounds of potential concern from industrial operations, including natural gas development. Environmental, health, and safety professionals at energy companies collect and analyze data regularly to protect their workforce, contractors, host communities and the environment. These extensive datasets are consciously ignored by those predisposed to creating worst-case speculative scenarios.

By design, the public sees only the alarmist headlines.

The reactions to these much-anticipated studies were telling. Some reactions were theatrical and prepared ahead of time (mostly journalists and environmental group bureaucrats with self-serving agendas) while others were raw with emotion emanating from genuine anguish (parents experiencing personal loss and tragedy). All the reactions were carefully commandeered by opportunists to nurture that positive feedback loop.

Constrained by the flaws of the study design, it was impossible to answer the questions of concerned residents, who came away empty-handed without the being told what is causing illnesses. ​

The researchers offered that “this was only the beginning” and “the first step,” both of which are code for justifying millions of dollars in additional expenditures to feed a machine dependent on fear and anxiety.

Media plays a collaborative role in manufacturing the emotion and bias. The news reports were what one commentator notably described as “overwhelmingly sloppy” with headlines, promoting outcomes that weren’t explicit in the studies.1 Many outlets conveyed conclusions not made in the studies, which is unethical, bordering on legally actionable. ​

Consider the following headlines appearing after the town hall presentation:

  • “Study: Asthma severity, rare childhood cancer likelier near gas wells”
  • “Research suggests link between fracking, rare childhood cancers”
  • “A Pennsylvania study suggests links between fracking and asthma, lymphoma in children”
  • “’Is it safe to live here?’: Questions loom at presentation of reports on fracking and health in southwestern Pa.”
  • “Fracking is making Pennsylvanians sick. Lawmakers must act.”

Most headline readers come away with conclusions that the studies did not conclude. Which is the objective of the journalists writing the headlines. Yet compare those headlines to what the studies and researchers stated:

  • “The researchers were unable to say whether the drilling caused the health problems, because the studies weren’t designed to do that.”
  • “But the researchers said they found no association between gas drilling and childhood leukemia, brain and bone cancers.”
  • “Limited evidence existed for a tie between gas extraction and central nervous system tumors.”
  • “But no relationship was found between fracking and leukemia. Similarly, results did not show a link between rare bone cancer and shale gas development that was statistically significant.”
  • “The studies used a retrospective model, which looks back in time at participants’ health instead of tracking patients in real time.”
  • “If you are just looking at the studies and trying to demonstrate some kind of causation, and trying to say that this is the end-all-be-all of the situation, that is not what these studies are designed to do.”

Welcome to modern-day mainstream media, now devoid of ethical standards, in the fields of domestic energy and environment. No wonder that Gallup found only 18% of Americans today have “a great deal or quite a lot of confidence” in newspapers. ​

(1) My personal observation was that the media reporting was “calculatingly curated.”

Jane Says ‘End Fossil Fuels Now’…But Jane’s Addiction Is to Fossil Fuels

The flyer arrived in the mail in early summer. The local speakers series was announcing its lineup of luminaries coming to Pittsburgh for the 2023-2024 season. Jane Fonda was the first guest on the schedule; her short bio mentioned the Jane Fonda Climate PAC.

Reading the brochure and seeing Fonda brought strong emotions.

Fair disclosure: I am not a fan of Jane Fonda’s off-screen antics. Her two-week visit to North Vietnam in 1972, capped with the infamous photos of her perched atop a Hanoi antiaircraft gun and smiling alongside NVA troops, remains a hurtful betrayal of America and its veterans. A shameless, embarrassing bid for attention and publicity.

But…embracing a classic liberal view of individual rights, including freedom of speech, I can’t fault the 85-year-old Fonda for going on the speakers tour. Or for running a political action committee (PAC) to fund politicians that match her ideology and policy leanings.

After all, this is America and it’s a free country, right? Perhaps that’s stretching wishful thinking with the Left running government these days. But call me an optimist.

Interestingly, a few days after the speaker series brochure arrival, I stumbled across an article featuring Fonda in the Wall Street Journal’s style section. It’s one of those features where a series of everyday questions are posed to the celebrity, offering insight into the celebrity’s preferences, likes, and lifestyle. (I’m not a regular reader of the style section, which my fashion sense corroborates).

Realizing Fonda was the guest, I gave a thorough read to the Q&A. Many of her answers in the May interview are riddled with climate change concern and advocacy for climate action. But her answers to the lifestyle and daily routine questions betrayed personal actions in conflict with her environmental talking points.

And once again, I was shocked by the degree of elitist hypocrisy on display, this time from Fonda. With such hypocrisy being a common occurrence these days, one would expect to be desensitized to it by now.

The timing and intersection of brochure and article were sweet serendipity for this energy policy afficionado.

On one end we have Fonda’s approaching speech that, based on the brochure, suggests a discussion on the need to address climate change. And then there’s Fonda’s expose in the Journal chatting up her lifestyle.

It was time to put the celebrity climate talk to the test of the celebrity lifestyle walk.

Jane Says: Climate Action Now!

Fonda clearly considers herself an advocate for the environment and a voice to urge decisive action on climate change. Those themes play prominent in many of her appearances, interviews, and speeches.

She formed the Jane Fonda Climate PAC, a political action committee that gathers donations to fund the campaigns of dozens of politicians who favor extreme environmental ideology and policies.

The organization’s website is professionally done and incudes a five-minute video of Fonda pleading to cut fossil fuel emissions and to end the influence of those evil fossil fuel companies.

She mentions ‘bomb cyclones’ in California. Ironically, she points to the Texas freeze of 2021 and New England blizzards as signs of global warming, err, climate change (isn’t the term ‘climate change’ so much more accommodating to the religion of radical environmentalism than ‘global warming’?).

She implores us to elect leaders who will act with urgency. Especially in America’s biggest cities, which need to move away from fossil fuels immediately. She reminds us that the evil fossil fuel industry never rests and that its lackies in Congress are hard at work planning the next nefarious moves.

Fonda touts her activist street cred across the website (absent is any mention of her Hanoi campaign of 1972). She proudly promotes how she was arrested five times for protesting the government’s inaction on climate change.

She warrants that the Jane Fonda Climate PAC is laser-focused on one goal: doing what it takes to defeat fossil fuel supporters and elect climate champions at all levels of government. She reflects that it is the most important thing she will do in her lifetime.

Of course, the site urges personal aggressive action on climate change, consistent with the typical climate-speak everywhere these days of ‘reaching a stark turning point,’ ‘time is short,’ and ‘the world is ending if we don’t all act ASAP’ (the same climate alarmism we’ve been hearing the last hundred years).

On social media, the Jane Fonda Climate PAC posted a message asking, “Each of us one day will have to answer the question: what did I do to protect the planet…?”1

Jane’s Addiction to Fossil Fuels

That social media post by the Jane Fonda Climate PAC got me thinking: what if the ‘one day’ it referenced was today? How would Fonda’s personal lifestyle today stack up to her rhetoric and lecturing others about the climate crisis and the need to stop using fossil fuels?

That’s where the interview came into play. In it, Fonda happily discusses in detail much of her daily routine and interests.

When one considers the carbon footprint and fossil fuel inputs that come with a day in the life of Jane Fonda, I’m afraid I’ve got some bad news for the Code Red crowd. Here’s a brief inventory:

  • Fonda says the first thing she does in the morning is play online games. Let’s assume the games2 are played on a smart phone, smart tablet, or computer. All those electronic products carry massive carbon footprints on a life cycle basis, and all need fossil fuels as a necessary input to the manufacturing process. Worse yet, many links of their production chains carry egregious ecological damage and human rights violations in the developing world.
  • Something had to charge those electronic devices to power them. That something would be electricity, which carries a significant carbon footprint and will rely on fossil fuels at some point on a life cycle basis, most often directly. If Fonda plugs in her devices in California, she should know wind and solar power generation require substantial fossil fuel inputs and backup. Plus, California’s grid to this day (and into the future unless blackouts are desired) relies on fossil fuel generation for much of the time and year.

Alright, Fonda is off to a not-so-sustainable start to her day, committing serious climate sin before lunch. But maybe there’s time left in the day to repent and get back on a zero-carbon path to redemption.

However, things on the climate action front go from bad to worse.

  • Fonda works out to stay in shape, which is great. She has a personal trainer who travels to and from Fonda’s home to assist in her workouts. How does that trainer travel to her home? Uh oh. If one assumes the trainer uses a car, that’s going to require fossil fuels.3 If the car is an EV, the fossil fuel inputs and carbon footprint may be worse than a gasoline powered car, because EVs have monster carbon footprints when one breaks down each step of their manufacturing process. And when the trainer charges the EV, it uses the same power generation sources that the smart devises used, which inevitably have carbon footprints and rely on fossil fuels.
  • Fonda says part of her workout regimen includes weights and resistance bands. If the weights are metal, there was surely a carbon footprint and fossil fuel use attached to making them; if the dumbbells are of the plastic or urethane finish style, the carbon footprint is worse, since plastics and polymers require natural gas and petroleum products as feedstocks. And the resistance bands? Goodness, those are typically latex, a chemical! That requires fossil fuels as an input to manufacture.

The carbon math is starting to stack up against Fonda’s preaching. But there is still time to make up lost ground. Let’s see if Fonda’s fashion habits can get her back on track to keeping fossil fuels in the ground.

  • Fonda says her closet is big. Which means the large size had a large carbon footprint to construct. And usually, large closets are parts of large residences, another fossil fuel hog when building. The closet (and residence) must be heated, cooled, and lighted. Those things require energy and inevitably fossil fuel-derived and/or -powered energy.
  • Fonda mentions many of her clothes are shiny. Often shiny in clothing equates to materials and coatings that are petroleum sourced. Should’ve stuck with neutral colors and boring materials if looking to save the planet.
  • Fonda’s go-to everyday clothing item is yoga pants. Such apparel is typically made from blends of Lycra spandex, nylon, polyester, or similar light and stretchy synthetic material. All those materials cannot be manufactured without fossil fuels.
  • Fonda, like most of us, has a favorite pair of shoes. For her they are of a fake alligator skin variety. That’s great for the alligators, but ‘fake’ is code for synthetic, as in petroleum based. Does she realize she is walking around with crude oil strapped to her feet?
  • Fonda’s top jewelry item is a pair of gold earrings. Did she understand the unbelievable carbon footprint that gold jewelry demands? Not to mention the murky supply chain of gold and what it means to human rights. They make look great on the ears, but those shiny trinkets increased atmospheric CO2 and might have done much worse to laborers in Africa or China.
  • Fonda has a favorite perfume and uses makeup. The perfume is nothing but a mixture of chemicals, each of which must be painstakingly industrially processed and carries a carbon footprint (along with its distribution and packaging). The cosmetics industry is one of the most carbon-intensive industries, particularly on a per unit basis.

Well, Fonda wanting to feel and look good is more environmentally destructive than we had hoped. Things are starting to look ecologically dire for Fonda’s personal choices. But there is still time to change the highway to climate hell she is on.4 Maybe her dietary choices will save the day…for Fonda and the planet. Let’s see.

  • Fonda adores pizza, especially truffle pizza. Like many, she has a preferred pizzeria. A quick review of the LA establishment’s website shows it is a Neapolitan pizzeria, which means it utilizes a brick/ceramic oven to make the pizzas.5 Guess what those ovens are typically fired with? That’s right, the fossil fuels of wood and/or natural gas. Yikes! And not to mention the fossil fuels burned to get to and from the eatery, to build the restaurant, and to power it.
  • Fonda admits to a guilty pleasure: kosher hotdogs. Oh no. Meat products are the worst when it comes to carbon footprint. It’s hard to believe that someone as passionate about the climate is not vegan.
  • Fonda likes ice cream, and who doesn’t? She particularly is a fan of packaged ice cream bars. Unfortunately, ice cream carries a horrendous carbon footprint in its processing, transport, and refrigeration. Packaged ice cream bars are worse. Really bad choice there when assessing environmental credibility.
  • From time to time, Fonda enjoys an alcohol beverage. Nothing wrong with that. Except her favorite, vodka, cannot be produced or bottled without mining, drilling, and flowing fossil fuels. If one desires a zero-carbon lifestyle, alcohol is verboten.

This is getting ugly. Time for a Hail Mary attempt to salvage Fonda’s lifestyle. How about her travel habits?

  • Fonda’s favorite hotel from past travels is the Ritz in Paris. The feel of the place was magical to her; the sheets, service, food, etc. The Ritz in Paris, and all the over-the-top luxury that embodies it, is one of the most energy intensive service locations in the world. All its excess piles up the carbon emissions and fossil fuel use, especially on a life cycle basis. The establishment must shut down immediately if one believes global fossil fuel use must be cut in half and eventually eradicated.
  • Fonda’s wish list for future travel is to Finland.6 I’m not sure where Fonda calls home(s) these days, I’m guessing she may need to fly to and from Finland. And unless she is spry enough to snowshoe and cross-country ski to the wilderness locations in Finland she wants to visit, her logistics would include ground/snow/ice transport powered by fossil fuels. The best thing for the climate is for Fonda to stay home and skip any travel.

Contrasting the Preaching and the Doing of Climateers

Members of the Code Red crowd who are reading this should be in panic mode by now. It turns out, by Fonda’s own admission, she lives a life that is egregiously carbon intensive and relies extensively on fossil fuels.

I mean, WTF JF.

This individual is a passionate advocate for climate action and keeping fossil fuels in the ground. She says it is the most important thing she will do in her life!

Yet Fonda can’t demonstrate a lifestyle that practices what she preaches. And all of it is arrogantly on full display across national media. Hypocrisy hiding in plain sight, yet a collaborative media refuses to expose the obvious.

The moxie these days of elites such as Jane Fonda. But that moxie provides opportunity to highlight unprecedented hypocrisy when it comes to much of the radical environmental movement these days.

Environmentalism has morphed into a virulent religion of rigid ideology. If the high priests of the movement refuse to practice what they preach, it is up to the rational and logical to call them out.

This commentary is dedicated to those who served in Vietnam.

(1) Jane Fonda Climate PAC post on X, August 7, 2023.
(2) Wordle is Fonda’s game of choice, introduced to her by fellow eco-warrior and celebrity Ted Danson.
(3) Perhaps Fonda lives on a public transportation line, allowing the trainer to travel to and from her home by bus or subway (yeah, I doubt it, too). Such a commute would still carry a substantial carbon footprint, particularly on a per passenger ride basis, as public transportation ridership continues to plummet across the country.
(4) Shout out to UN carnival barker Guterres who quipped, “We are on a highway to climate hell.”
(5) Having family roots from Naples, I consider pizza a food group of its own. I share Fonda’s love for the food. Pizza unites us all! But you can’t enjoy a zero-carbon slice; that’s impossible.
(6) She wants to meet with reindeer herders to find out how climate change is impacting their lives. Celebrities…