Author: Kerby Anderson

Kerby Anderson
Summer is months away but there is already news of an energy shortage on the Texas power grid. Most people would not think Texas would have an energy scare. But officials asked power generators to postpone scheduled maintenance “to help alleviate potential tight conditions.”
Usually the grid has excess power-generation capacity in the Spring, especially given that the temperatures are in the 80s. One reason for the shortage is population growth, but others have to do with the electricity needed for new data centers.
Data centers need power 24/7 and cannot be shut off in the way that manufacturing plants or even bitcoin mining can be shut down when there is peak energy demand. Although we need data servers in this cyber age, it is worth mentioning that one significant amount of energy is merely used for pornography. Internet usage accounts for 10 percent of the world’s total energy consumption and is estimated to reach 20 percent in a few years. One study estimated that 35 percent of the Internet bandwidth is pornography.
Data centers already account for about 2.5 percent of US electricity but are expected to use more than 20 percent by the end of this decade. The reason for that is artificial intelligence. A typical web search uses less than one watt of power. An AI-powered search requires 100 watts. Training an AI search uses 1,000 watts.
A decade ago, The Guardian warned that “viral cat videos are warming the planet.” We now know more about what sectors of the Internet use electricity. We also know that we have more electric vehicles on the road than any other time in history.
Before we get to hot summers that demand even more electricity, we need to have a serious conversation about energy use and energy demands.

Kerby Anderson
Jean Twenge begins her essay by suggesting a thought experiment. “Imagine that a company began mass-producing a new toy. This was not a toy for little kids; instead, it appealed most to adolescents. The toy became wildly popular, first with teens and eventually with younger children as well. The toy was so engaging that some teens stayed up until 2 a.m. just to play with it. Before long, teens spent so much time using the toy that they cut back on socializing in person.”
As you can probably guess, she is talking about the smartphone that began to change the lives of teenagers beginning around 2012. She argues that “the growing popularity of smartphones and social media over the past decade and a half has fundamentally changed the lives of teenagers.”
I would encourage parents and grandparents to read her article linked to this commentary. She provides graphs showing in-person socializing decreasing and an increasing number of sleep-deprived teens who are sleeping less than seven hours a night. There are graphs showing a significant increase in major depression and loneliness. Also, she documents teens decrease in adult activities (getting a driver’s license, going on a date).
She also takes the time to eliminate other possible explanations. Could the increase in depression be due to school shootings or the opioid crisis? She reminds us that these (and other) explanations are specific to the US. We see a similar uptick in other countries.
She concludes with specific recommendations that might strike some as radical. But she then explains the cost-benefit analysis for keeping children and young teens off social media. She makes a compelling case.

Kerby Anderson
Most left-leaning economists cannot understand why American consumers are complaining when many economic indicators are positive. One of those individuals is Paul Krugman, a Nobel-prize-winning columnist for the New York Times.
He argued in a previous column that inflation was not a problem and used his recent trip to the grocery store to prove it. “Now, I go grocery shopping myself, and am occasionally startled by the total at the cash register—although that’s usually because I wasn’t factoring in the price of that bottle of scotch I picked up along with the meat and vegetables.” He did admit that he had “no idea” what he paid for the same groceries a few years ago.
Michael Powell, writing in The Atlantic, uses this story to illustrate the growing chasm between liberal economists and American consumers. Economists point to low unemployment and a cooling inflation rate (though the consumer price index was 3.5 percent higher in March than a year ago).
Meanwhile, consumers see higher prices just about everywhere they look. The consumer price index for food rose 25 percent from 2019 to 2023. Gas prices have gone up 50 percent in the past four years. Fuel-oil prices jumped by more than half in the same period. Home prices have gone up nearly 50 percent nationwide since the start of the pandemic.
Paul Krugman has an answer for Americans: “Maybe my message here sounds like Obi-Wan Kenobi in reverse: Look, don’t trust your feelings.” Michael Powell responds that Americans would be “wiser to trust their feelings and checking accounts than to rely on liberal economists riffing as Jedi masters.” That is why there is such a gap between liberal economists and American consumers.

Kerby Anderson
Over the last few months, the word “unsustainable” has been frequently used. The GAO (Government Accountability Office) proclaimed: “The federal government is on an unsustainable long-term fiscal path that poses serious economic, national security, and social challenges if not addressed.”
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, said in his 60 Minutes interview: “The U.S. federal government is on an unsustainable fiscal path. And that just means that the debt is growing faster than the economy. So, it is unsustainable.”
The country burdened with more than $34 trillion in national debt should be having a serious conversation about how to turn the economy around. Don’t expect any serious discussion from most candidates this election season.
Fortunately, Scott Powell makes a convincing case for the need for “radical economic change.” The current US debt-to-GDP ratio now exceeds 122 percent. As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, that puts us in the danger zone.
He is realistic enough to show that we need both spending reductions as well as new sources of revenue. Cutting spending is politically difficult but also constitutionally difficult since two-thirds (65%) of the federal budget is mandatory spending. But something must be done to reduce the size of the federal government.
The other way to balance a budget is to get more sources of income. He points to the country’s massive oil and gas reserves. The US is number one among nations in both natural gas and oil reserves. He also argues that another way to pay down the national debt is for the federal government to “sell half of its 640 million acres of public land.”
These ideas might seem radical, but we need to ask candidates running for office this year whether they have a better solution. I doubt they do.

Kerby Anderson
Today is Earth Day. I was a participant in the first Earth Day as a high school student and remember one equation. It was I=PAT. The environmental impact (I) was equal to the population (P) multiplied by affluence (A) multiplied by technology (T). In other words, as a country grew in population and affluence and technology, the worse the pollution and environmental impact. The obvious conclusion was that the best way to protect the planet would be to have fewer people, less wealth, and simpler technology.
It was an interesting equation, but it turned out to be wrong as countries got richer. John Tierney pointed this out in his column in The New York Times. He acknowledges that the “IPAT theory may have made intuitive sense, but it didn’t jibe with the data that has been analyzed since that first Earth Day.” Researchers instead found that the graphs of environmental impact with a simple upward-sloping line were wrong. Instead, it turns out that the line flattens out and then slopes downward. This is called a Kuznets curve.
Here’s the trend: as countries get richer, they have more incentive and more financial means to clean up pollution. Of course, there are exceptions (especially with countries with inept governments and a poor system of property rights). But the general rule is that as incomes go up, people focus on pollution.
Tierney says: “As their wealth grows, people consume more energy, but they move to more efficient and cleaner sources — from wood to coal and oil, and then to natural gas and nuclear power, progressively emitting less carbon per unit of energy.”
I think this suggests a positive environmental future for developing countries. They may be ascending the Kuznets curve right now, but may soon be ready to address environmental concerns.

Kerby Anderson
A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal began with these sentences. “Memo to companies: Go ahead and cancel your DEI programs. That’s more or less the message of a recent report commissioned by the UK government finding that diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.” The report found little evidence that DEI had any positive effect on corporate culture.
In fact, it is difficult to say what DEI means. The terms are, according to the report, “ambiguous, rapidly evolving, and often conflated.” Although the current fad is to focus on diversity among racial, social, or other lines, “a visibly diverse organization is not necessarily meaningfully heterogenous.” The Wall Street Journal editors concluded that “viewpoint diversity may be more important for a thriving company.”
As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, cancelling DEI programs, and closing DEI departments can save money. US companies spend $8 billion a year on DEI training. The other savings is in the legal area. Even in the UK, there have been lawsuits against companies because their DEI policies have “violated British protections on freedom of belief by punishing employees who dissented from the DEI orthodoxy on race or transgenderism.”
Last month I talked about the fact that the University of Florida announced it was ending its experiment with DEI. The college closed the Office of the Chief Diversity Officer and eliminated DEI positions, thereby saving more than $5 million each year on the controversial program. The Florida legislature passed a law prohibiting state funding of DEI programs and University of Florida President Ben Sasse implemented it.
I suggest other companies and universities follow their example.

Kerby Anderson
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would ban TikTok in this country unless the company was sold to Americans. Chinese national security laws require Chinese-owned companies to assist the government in intelligence-gathering.
But Lathan Watts reminds us that our own government has also been engaging in censorship and surveillance of US citizens. That is why he wonders if putting TikTok under American ownership would merely be an example of “jumping out of the wok and into the fire.”
He cites two recent Supreme Court cases that illustrate his concerns. The first is Murthy v. Missouri. The Biden administration is accused of a coordinated campaign to force social media companies to censor what the government deemed as “misinformation.” During the oral arguments, one Supreme Court justice announced to the attorneys that her biggest concern “is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government.” But isn’t that why the First Amendment was written in the first place?
The other case is NRA v. Vullo that involved the state of New York using its power to force banks and insurance companies to deny services to the National Rifle Association. Perhaps you don’t have any problem with that action. Would you feel differently if another state encouraged financial institutions to deny services to the ACLU or Greenpeace?
One week prior to the Supreme Court hearings, a US House subcommittee documented how the Treasury Department colluded with America’s largest banks to monitor customer financial transactions. The suggested criteria include transactions with stores like Cabela’s and the purchase of “religious texts.”
All of this illustrates the authoritarian impulses we see today in America. That is why Lathan and I wonder if transferring TikTok ownership to Americans would merely be jumping from the wok into the fire.

Kerby Anderson
Perhaps you have noticed that many young Christians are being convinced to deconstruct their faith. Occasionally we read about a prominent Christian author or musician who announces they are leaving the Christian faith.
The irony of this is the fact that there is an increasing amount of evidence for the Bible and Christian faith. We seem to be living in “the golden age of apologetics.” But it isn’t the evidence that causes these people to leave the faith but usually it’s their concern over social issues like abortion or transgenderism.
Fortunately, there are some excellent books that address this trend of deconstruction. Sean McDowell and John Marriott have written, Set Adrift: Deconstructing What You Believe Without Sinking Your Faith. They establish the biblical foundation for our faith and then provide practical advice on how to rethink and reassemble what is truly Christian and culturally relevant. They also utilize creeds as boundary markers for what is essential.
Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett have written, The Deconstruction of Christianity: What It Is, Why It’s Destructive, and How to Respond. They argue that “deconstruction is a death of sorts.” It is not only a death of beliefs but a death of their community and relationships. That last point is significant since deconstruction not only affects the person going through it but also has an impact on friends, family, and the church.
People throughout the centuries have been questioning their faith and having doubt about biblical truth. But this current phenomenon of deconstruction comes from secular leaders and even progressive Christians promoting “inclusivity” and “tolerance.” It is therefore important to understand how our culture is promoting deconstruction and to know how to provide encouragement to people experiencing doubt.

Kerby Anderson
J.K. Rowling is best known as the Harry Potter author, but she is also beginning to be known as a political activist. She lives in Scotland and has been leading the charge against Scotland’s Hate Crime and Public Order Act.
The bill criminalizes “stirring up hatred” in such a way that “a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive, or insulting.” There need not be any specific victim of the crime.
In order to draw attention to this authoritarian bill, she posted this statement. “I’m currently out of the country, but if what I’ve written here qualifies as an offence under the terms of the new act, I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment.”
She won’t be arrested, but it is likely that someone will be arrested sometime in the future for this abusive hate crime law. It is also ironic that when the law was first introduced, it was put forward as an attempt to amend an 1837 blasphemy law. Some critics have suggested that it merely swaps out one blasphemy law about religion for another blasphemy law about political correctness.
Most of the hate crime laws in this country or in other countries were drafted to address the problem of racism. This law clearly wants to expand the focus from racism to transgenderism. When J.K. Rowling heard she would not be arrested, she responded: “I hope every woman in Scotland who wishes to speak up for the reality and importance of biological sex will be reassured by this announcement, and I trust that all women — irrespective of profile or financial means — will be treated equally under the law.”
Hate crime laws have always been a bad idea, but this is even worse. It criminalizes the commonsense observation about the difference between women and trans women.

Kerby Anderson
Today is Tax Day. Perhaps you are like many other Americans and wonder if your tax forms will be audited. It turns out that the IRS has been audited. The editors of the Wall Street Journal noticed two irregularities.
The editors quote from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. The editors conclude that the Biden administration’s goal of wanting “to audit more ultrawealthy and fewer middle-class filers is not going so well.”
The original plan was to disproportionately target individuals making at least $400,000. But the IRS “did not include specifics on how the IRS was going to ensure it met this commitment.” No wonder. The most recent data shows that the IRS is still focused on the middle class. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of the new audits targeted taxpayers with income less than $200,000.
To be fair, the IRS never claimed it would decrease middle-class audits. All it claimed is that it would increase audits on more wealthy Americans. The billions of dollars Congress allocated to the IRS was supposed to fund that increase. But the IRS hasn’t been able to hire all those new IRS agents.
A little over a year ago, we were told after passing the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, that the IRS would be focusing their audits on the very rich. Instead, they are still focusing on the middle class. Why?
First, the IRS has been going after the middle class for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks. Because that’s where the money is. Second, Americans in the middle class are more likely to settle with the IRS rather than endure costly expenses of appeal and litigation even if they have a good case.
Nearly two years later, we were promised that the IRS would target the wealthy. Instead, the middle class has been the target of so many of their audits.

Kerby Anderson
A few months ago, I talked about the future decline in home ownership. For example, the number of first-time homebuyers declined to just 26 percent in 2022. This was the lowest level since the National Association of Realtors began tracking data.
The latest research from Zillow explains this significant decrease. The report estimates that you would need to make more than $106,000 annually to comfortably afford a home. Put another way, that suggests that more than half of American households can’t afford homeownership.
Let’s compare home prices and annual income in 2020 to this year. Back then, an annual income of $59,000 could pay a mortgage without spending more than 30 percent of the income (assuming a 10 percent down payment). That year the US median income was about $66,000. More than half of American households could afford homeownership.
Today the median income is around $81,000, which is far short of the $106,000 need to comfortably maintain payments. The monthly payment on a typical US home has nearly doubled since 2020.
Of course, these are averages. Here is a short list of cities that need a much lower household income to afford a home: Pittsburgh, Memphis, or Cleveland. Compare that to cities that require the highest family income: San Jose and Silicon Valley, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.
The cost of housing has skyrocketed, and interest rates have also increased. First-time home buyers are the families most affected by these increases. That makes it hard not only to find a home but to find one you can afford.
Owning a home used to be the American dream. For an increasing number of Americans, that dream seems out of reach.

Kerby Anderson
Veronique de Rugy begins her column with positive economic indicators (unemployment is low, wages are up, inflation is down), but then acknowledges that “the American people are grumpy about the state of the economy.”
I love it when this brilliant woman with a prestigious doctorate in economics refers to Americans as grumpy. She points to a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research that concludes the government underestimates the true level of inflation.
One of the authors is Larry Summers, who served as Treasury Secretary under President Clinton. He notes in a recent tweet on X that before 1983, mortgage costs were used in calculating the Consumer Price Index. Car payments were used until 1998. Now the index does not include borrowing costs. When interest payments jumped significantly last year, the index did not capture the effects.
Here’s the shocker. Larry Summers goes on to argue that if we measured inflation the way we did in the 1970s, the inflation rate that started in 2021 would have peaked at 18 percent. That is double the official reported peak of 9 percent. Put another way, we have been living through an inflation rate higher than anything Americans experienced in the 1970s and 1980s.
No wonder Americans are grumpy about the economy. The government statistics are telling them one thing, but their personal experience is telling them something very different. A recent Gallup poll found that two-thirds (63%) said the economy is getting worse. Nearly half (45%) think the economy is already poor.
Government officials and the compliant media can cite all the economic figures they want, but it appears they have underestimated the impact of inflation on the American consumer.

Kerby Anderson
Is there a leftist bias in artificial intelligence? A Washington Post tech writer has written about various research papers about the liberal bias within Open AI’s ChatGPT. Although the AI program tells users that it doesn’t have any political opinions or beliefs, it shows certain biases.
A study by the Springer Journal of Public Choice also found that ChatGPT produced responses that were in line with leftist thought. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that OpenAU’s models typically produce left-leaning responses.
One extensive study came from John Lott, who has been on my radio program many times in the past. His Crime Prevention Research Center asked questions of twenty AI chatbots on topics related to crime and gun control. He then ranked the answers on how liberal or conservative their responses were.
Only Elon Musk’s Grok AI chatbots gave conservative answers on crime. But even these programs gave consistently liberal answers on gun control. Bing was the least liberal chatbot on gun control. The French AI chatbot Mistral in the only one that on average was neutral in its answers.
John Lott concludes that these AI programs are very liberal in their answers on crime and gun control. But they also provide liberal answers on economic and social issues, with Google’s Gemini being the most extreme. He also notes that Musk’s Grok has moved more toward the political center, but much more needs to be done.
As I document in my recent booklet on A Biblical View on Artificial Intelligence, there are many concerns that researchers have about AI, but one that certainly needs to be addressed soon in the obvious leftwing bias in these programs.

Kerby Anderson
What is America’s future? Columnist Cal Thomas considers that question in his book, America’s Expiration Date. The book came out years ago but has a new preface and is more relevant today. He was on my program recently to talk about the fall of empires and the future of the United States.
He begins with an observation by Sir John Glubb, who wrote The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival. He noticed an interesting historical fact. The average age of a nation or empire’s greatness is only 250 years. Most nations lose their way in a relatively short amount of time.
Using that ruler, Cal Thomas gives us a history lesson of the Persian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Arab Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, and the Russian Empire. He concludes with the United States.
Each empire fell for different reasons, but they are lessons to us today. Sometimes they fell because they became too prosperous and thus too apathetic. Sometimes they fell because the empire was over extended. Most had a period of decadence and decline. The Spanish empire was so riven with conflict, they were never invaded because other countries saw nothing worth conquering.
All of that brings him to this country. He said that whenever he hears the song, “God Bless America” sung at baseball games and patriotic events, he asks himself, Why Should He? America doesn’t seem to be doing much that would find favor in God’s sight. We seem to be living in our own age of decadence.
He does believe that there is still time to resurrect the republic, but the answer can’t be found in politicians. Our future doesn’t depend on the White House, but instead is dependent on what we do in our house.

Kerby Anderson
Law professor Glenn Reynolds wonders why so many woke institutions continue to do things that hurt their bottom line. We have all heard the catchphrase “go woke, go broke.” Yet, he laments that “people at the top of major corporations and government agencies keep, well, getting woke and going broke.” Here’s his short list.
First, there is Harvard University, “roiled by antisemitism scandals in which woke politics kept administrators from protecting Jewish students.” The school has lost so much in donations that it shut down a library and is looking to borrow money to meet expenses. Reynolds reminds us that it does have a gigantic endowment but needs daily cash to meet expenses.
Second is Disney that is losing money, especially because of failures at the box office. The Lucasfilm chief Kathleen Kennedy has been known for the “South Park” joke about her films: “put a chick in it and make her gay.”
Sports Illustrated managed to alienate readers with its venerable swimsuit issue “by featuring trans, obese, and old models on the cover.” Meanwhile, Planet Fitness decided to embrace men who identify as women. The stock plummeted while terminating memberships of women who complained.
This list would not be complete unless we mentioned beer and the military. The Budweiser debacle over Dylan Mulvaney as a Bud Light spokesperson will probably be studied for years in marketing classes. And the US military’s focus on woke politics and “white nationalism” have led to dramatic enlistment declines.
The leaders of these organizations might like the fact that some applaud their ESG scores and DEI scores. But the American people have been voting with their feet and pocketbooks and are punishing these woke institutions.

Kerby Anderson
In the opening chapter of his book, The Privileged Planet, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez talks about watching a total eclipse in India in 1995. In order to have a solar eclipse, you need to have an object come in front of the sun. But in order to have a total solar eclipse, you need the right ratios in size and distance.
As one website explains it: ‘The Sun’s diameter is about 400 times greater than that of the Moon, but it’s also about 400 times farther away. This coincidence of nature means that the Sun and the Moon appear to be roughly the same size in our sky.”
But he began to wonder, Is it merely a coincidence? He begins to play the “what if” game. What if the Moon were much closer to earth? What if the Moon were less round? What if the Moon had an atmosphere? What if we were living on another planet in the Solar System? In case you are wondering, Earth is the only planet where a total solar eclipse can be seen.
The ratios of size and distance are “just right.” As you have probably heard me say in previous commentaries, the growing list of parameters in our universe, our galaxy, and our solar system are all “just right.” Some astronomers looking at these “just right” anthropic coincidences say we live in a Goldilocks Universe.
Non-Christian scientists are aware of these parameters and merely argue that we were fortunate and won the cosmological lottery. But others, like Guillermo Gonzalez, see the so-called coincidences are evidence of intelligent design.
Next Monday, when you look up in the sky, make sure you have approved solar eclipse glasses. But as you watch or even see the event recorded on the Internet, remember Psalm 19 – “The heavens declare the glory of God.”

Kerby Anderson
Inflation has been so much a part of our economic lives, so we take it for granted. Although the Federal Reserve aims for an inflation target of 2 percent, some economists are suggesting we should reexamine that target especially since we won’t be hitting it very soon.
Two years ago, I mentioned a book by Jeff Booth. In the The Price of Tomorrow, he argues that we should be seeing deflation in our society. His argument is simple: Technology is deflationary. That is the nature of technology.
Think about cell phones. He explains that his first cell phone (which was a Motorola 8000). “It had thirty minutes of talk time before it needed to be charged for ten to twelve hours, and it cost about $2,000.” Think of the cell phone in your hand today.
While we are talking about cell phones, perhaps you have seen the graphic that compares the Apollo 11 computer with the Apple iPhone. The Apollo guidance computer used 12,250 flops (floating point operations per second). The Apple iPhone 12 now processes 11 trillion flops. It is 900 million times faster than the Apollo computer and also a fraction of the cost.
Jeff Booth reminds us, “Our economic systems were not built for a world driven by technology where prices keep falling. They were built for a pre-technology era where labor and capital were inextricably linked, an era that counted on growth and inflation, an era where we made money from scarcity and inefficiency.”
We should be experiencing deflation, which is a world where you get more for your money. But we have inflation due to money printing and the declining value of the dollar. Perhaps it is time to rethink how we do this economy.

Kerby Anderson
The most recent Gallup survey has both good news and bad news. The good news is that Americans over the age of 60 may be some of the happiest people on earth. The bad news is that young Americans under 30 are not happy. In fact, they rank very far down the chart on global happiness.
Smartphones explain the difference. Two professors have been documenting this for the last decade. Jean Twenge is best known for her book, iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy–And Completely Unprepared. She found consistently decreased levels of happiness beginning in 2013.
Because they were on their phones, adolescents were spending less time interacting with others. They spend less time developing friendships, get less sleep, and attend fewer religious services. Instead, they spend their time looking at screens, posting comments on social media, texting, and playing games. No wonder she has found a causal link between teen depression and smartphones.
Jonathan Haidt has been on my program to talk about his book, The Coddling of the American Mind. His new book just came out: The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness.
He provided a preview of his research in Atlantic, “End the Phone-Based Childhood Now.” He begins his article by documenting that “something went suddenly and horribly wrong for adolescents in the early 2010s.” Suicide rates (along with loneliness and friendlessness) rose dramatically. Young people were struggling to find meaning in life.
I encourage you to read his twenty-page article in Atlantic. It should be a wake-up call to all parents.

Kerby Anderson
Bjorn Lomborg reminds us, “More than one million people die in traffic accidents globally each year.” He says we could solve that problem by having governments reduce speed limits to 3 miles an hour. Of course, we will never do that because you need to consider other factors.
He makes that point to illustrate that the mantra “follow the science” does not allow a rational evaluation of cost and benefit. “That assertion lets politicians obscure—and avoid responsibility for—lopsided climate-policy trade-offs.”
The Biden administration has set a goal of achieving a net-zero emissions economy by no later than 2050. Outgoing climate envoy, John Kerry, has said there is no alternative, and has also dismissed the idea that this goal is politically motivated.
Lomborg explains that this way of thinking “conflates climate science and climate policy. Man-made climate change exists, but what societies do in response is still a matter of choice.” The mantra that we must “follow the science” essentially shuts down rational discussions about the enormous and unsustainable costs being proposed.
He reminds us that “the world still gets four-fifths of its energy from fossil fuels” and “half the world’s population entirely depends on food grown with synthetic fertilizer.” Economist Neil Record showed an abrupt end to fossil fuel use would cause six billion deaths in less than a year.
In addition to the human cost is the economic cost. The latest economic research estimates that net zero policies would be more than seven times as costly as the climate problem it is trying to address.
We need a sensible, rational policy discussion when addressing the issue of climate change.

Kerby Anderson
Four years ago, we heard the announcement about “15 days to slow the spread.” The anniversary of that campaign brought many articles. Scott Atlas wrote about “Covid Lessons Learned, Four Years Later.” John Stossel did a YouTube video and follow-up commentary on “Covid: Don’t Let Them Off the Hook.”
Scott Atlas reminded us that the benefits of the lockdowns were tiny. It supposedly prevented some deaths, but those numbers are very small when compared to the number of Americans who die of the flu each year. The number of non-Covid excess deaths are huge, especially when compared to other European countries. A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the U.S. “would have had 1.60 million fewer deaths if it had the performance of Sweden.”
The impact on the economy and jobs was staggering. “According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as many as 49 million Americans were out of work in May 2020. This shock had health consequences.” And prolonged school closings led to permanent learning loss and later increases in “psychiatric illness, self-harm, obesity, and substance abuse.”
John Stossel says he was always wary of politicians but “was surprised at how authoritarian many were eager to be.” Many mayors and governors locked down the society in ways that didn’t even make sense from a medical perspective.
It is worth mentioning that four years ago, I did a radio program and radio commentaries on the book, The Price of Panic. It was written by experts in several fields documenting the problems with the lockdowns and predicting much of what we can now see clearly.
These are lessons learned that we need to remember, especially during this election year when candidates will be asking for your vote.