“President Trump was right to remove the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement and eliminate the Green New Deal. Now, Alaska must do the same.”
Alaska is synonymous with rugged independence and self-reliance. But this is at risk from the alignment with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), falsely advertised as modernizing and protecting the state’s natural beauty.
Adhering to this globalist construct has left many local communities grappling with the fallout. From an exploding homeless population to rising energy costs and diminished economic opportunities, the promises of the SDGs have often clashed with the realities of life in America’s Last Frontier.
To understand how these things have wreaked havoc on Alaska, brief summaries are provided to illustrate the direct connection between SDGs and state policies.
Big Picture Control
The UN’s 17 SDGs are nothing more than the latest iteration of a long-standing agenda to impose centralized control under the guise of “sustainability.”…
Continue Reading“The data make it clear that the only possible rationale for renewable energy—making significant reductions of CO2 emissions—cannot be achieved. The costs of attempting to do this are already imposing heavy costs on economies across the world.”
By the 1800s, wind and solar were both mature and successful technologies. Yet as soon as Western society developed the wealth and technology to take advantage of fossil fuels, they were discarded—along with batteries for electric cars—with no place in the modern world for grid-scale generation of electricity.
Renewable energy still cannot compete with the efficiency, affordability, and reliability of fossil fuels. But this has not stopped it from making a comeback on the backs of American taxpayers and consumers who have paid for hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies from federal, state, and local governments.…
Continue ReadingEditor note: The wealth of free-market capitalism creates a robust civil society, where nonprofits and foundations can support the causes of their choosing, many of which might not be viable otherwise. The problem is where philanthropy goes political against the free society and human betterment. Jane Shaw Stroup at her blog Jane Takes on History takes a look at good money going in negative directions, even violating original intent.
You’ve probably heard that Henry Ford II resigned from the board of the Ford Foundation because it had veered far away from its donor’s intent. In his 1976 resignation letter, Ford (grandson of Henry Ford Sr.) wrote:
… Continue ReadingIn effect, the foundation is a creature of capitalism—a statement that, I’m sure, would be shocking to many professional staff people in the field of philanthropy.