African-Mined Cobalt Shipped To Mexico Will Be Processed In Yuma

African-Mined Cobalt Shipped To Mexico Will Be Processed In Yuma

By Terri Jo Neff |

An Arizona company has announced plans to ship African-mined cobalt to Mexico, then truck it north to be processed at a new, state-of-the-art facility in Yuma County so it can be sold to companies that make batteries for Electric Vehicles (EVs).

EVelution Energy is expected to start construction of its Yuma cobalt processing facility next year, with a goal of being operational no later than early 2026.  It forecasts more than 1,000 construction phase jobs, along with 60 direct and 300 indirect jobs once the facility is fully functional.  

Cobalt is a rare, ferromagnetic metal primarily used in lithium-ion batteries and in the manufacture of magnetic, high-strength alloys. Dating back to 3000 BC, cobalt was mostly used for its blue coloring in the making of ceramics and glass.

Other uses were limited due to the fact arsenic fumes are a by-product of smelting. But new processing methods in the last few decades changed all of that.

In March, the Yuma County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a special-use permit allowing EVelution to move forward with construction on 139 acres just east of the City of Yuma and south of the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge.

The property, which spans Union Pacific Railroad tracks and U.S. Interstate 8, is located within one of Arizona’s Qualified Opportunity Zones which provide a wide range of tax incentives for private, long-term investments in economically distressed communities.

There are also various federal economic development incentives currently available for EVelution Energy’s project, such as the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, nearly two-thirds of all mined cobalt (150,000 tonnes in 2019) comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (100,000 tonnes in 2019). The USGS also estimates there is about 4 million tonnes of cobalt reserves on the African continent, and another 3 million tonnes globally.

EVelution plans to transport cobalt hydroxide feedstock sourced from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to a port in Ensenada, Mexico, a roughly four hour trip by truck to the Yuma processing facility. And the company knows there is domestic market for its product.

Currently, more than 70 percent of the world’s battery grade cobalt is processed in China. That puts U.S.-based Electric Vehicle manufacturers overly reliant on imports.

The Yuma cobalt facility’s expected annual 7,000 tonnes capacity could meet 40 percent of the expected demand for U.S.-produced EVs in 2027.

The forecasted $55 million economic benefit from EVelution Energy’s project is very much needed, particularly in southwestern Arizona. However, two environmental concerns will be closely monitored even though Yuma County approved the company’s special use permit.  

First is the sourcing and disposal of water. EVelution expects to use 74 million gallons of water per month. The water will be sourced from aquifers running under the property, likely via wells which will run more than 1,000 feet deep.

“Our water usage is therefore not expected to impact the surrounding area’s water table/groundwater,” the company says, adding that a water treatment plant will allow for about 70 percent of its used water to be recycled.

The second concern is the disposal of “tailings,” which are the unused materials which remain after processing. EVelution intends to minimize risks of potential contamination to its or surrounding land by foregoing on-site tailing ponds.

“Tailings will be collected, transported and safely disposed of at a licensed local landfill located less than 20 miles away,” the company says. 

EVelution Energy is also focused on transitioning to a net zero carbon future. Getting there will mean building a 38.4 MW (peak) solar power array to power the processing plant. The company expects to use excess power from the day to recharge its battery storage.

There is also the possibility some of the excess electricity can be sold to a local power utility to service nearby agricultural companies.

“Solar power will heat the water and process solutions for hydrometallurgical cobalt processing,” according to the company’s website. ‘This heated solution will be stored at temperature in large storage tanks overnight. Using solar power rather than propane or natural gas will further reduce our carbon-footprint.”

As with most mining operations in Africa, there are concerns with the health impacts to workers and with the use of child labor. EVelution’s website shows the company is aware of those issues. 

“We are committed to sourcing cobalt in a socially responsible manner, preventing child labor and to promoting respect for human rights of people employed in or affected by our cobalt supply chain,” the website states. “We plan to source our cobalt only from companies that comply with the guidelines of the Responsible Cobalt Initiative.”

EVelution’s proximity to California could lead to further revenue streams, given that state’s early acceptance of EVs.

With EV batteries being quite heavy, and thus expensive to transport, the company is “well positioned to potentially recycle EV batteries from electric vehicles that reach the end of their product lifespan,” its website notes. “The oldest electric vehicles are predominantly located in California and therefore their batteries will be in need of recycling the soonest.”

Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.

Are Electric Vehicles the Solution to Climate Change? Or Is It a Government-subsidized Scam at Over $30,000 per Car?

Are Electric Vehicles the Solution to Climate Change? Or Is It a Government-subsidized Scam at Over $30,000 per Car?

By Terence E Winters, PhD |

James Dyson, Britain’s multi-billionaire version of Elon Musk, announced in 2019 that he was terminating his private company’s project to design, build, and market “a radically different” electric car (EV). The project, housed in its own isolated facility about 100 miles from London, had cost him about $1 billion over 4 years and had employed over 600 engineers and support people. This was a difficult decision for him to make since he is an engineer and has made his money on electrically powered devices, so EVs were in his sweet spot, just another electric device.

Dyson owns the company and so he had no shareholders that he had to explain his actions to. He simply said, in an exclusive interview with Fortune, “It just wasn’t commercially viable” since he would have had to price the electric car below his cost. The article in Fortune’s November 29, 2019 edition, “James Dyson’s Electric Shock” is fascinating reading and concludes that Dyson is that rare executive who combines blue-sky dreaming with steely-eyed financial discipline.

Add this to the fact that electric cars were common in the early 1900s but died out because they could not compete with gasoline cars, and we have to ask: what is going on here? While Elon Musk was getting Tesla to a market valuation of over a trillion dollars, James Dyson was backing away from the same field and saying it was not commercially viable. One of them is wrong, so let’s review the pros and cons of electric vehicles and you, dear reader, can decide.

First, some key advantages of EVs over gas/diesel cars (ICE= internal combustion engine):

    • Good performance, especially acceleration.
    • Quieter than ICEs.
    • Classed as zero emission vehicles with preferential treatment on our roads such as use of HOV lanes, which is very useful in rush hours. But this ignores the emissions from manufacturing EVs, especially the battery, and from generating the electricity to power them.
    • In most states, EVs do not pay annual license plate fees and do not contribute to the building or maintenance of roads, as ICE vehicles do, through the gas tax. This is another subsidy, worth at least $1,000 per car per year. But we will not count this subsidy.
    • Cheaper to service and to fuel. But this has significant caveats. See later.
    • Perceived as replacing ICE cars, thereby helping to minimize climate change. See later.

There has been much written on this subject so here are some facts about EVs that are not well known:

1. Subsidies. State and federal governments each give a tax credit subsidy to the original owner for buying a new EV. The total varies by state but, combined, it is usually about $10,000 per car, subject to conditions. But there are numerous other subsidies granted to either the EV owner, the EV manufacturer, the battery manufacturer, or the charging station owner. They take the form of direct tax credits, grants, and other payments that can be taken whether or not any tax is due. It is difficult to pin these down and convert to a number such as amount per car, especially with the array of additional subsidies in the recent IRA Bill, but the total is at least $30,000 per car and probably much more. The tangled web of these subsidies suggests that the government may not want the public to know the true extent of its largesse towards EVs. Let’s list some of them:

    • Carbon credits granted annually to Tesla and other EV companies because they are classed as “zero emission vehicles” (they are not – more about that later). These credits by law must be bought by other car companies as a penalty for them continuing to produce ICE cars. You have to look hard for this subsidy in Tesla’s financial statements, but it is there – look for “automotive regulatory credits” in the operating statements. They have amounted to a total of $4.8 billion of cash for the 3 years, 2020-22 (the 2022 figure is estimated based on 9-month numbers). Tesla does not have to pay this back. It is a straight cash subsidy from Tesla’s ICE competitors, mandated by the U.S. government. This is another $3,000 to $5,000 per car and has made Tesla profitable. Other EV manufacturers get similar carbon credits.
    • EV subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA):
      • The $7,500 federal tax credit subsidy to the owner of a new EV has been extended to a wider range of vehicles and consumers, with income, foreign source, and vehicle purchase price limits (that can be worked around). No doubt states will follow suit with their subsidies. Plus, this federal tax credit has been extended to the purchase of a used EV up to a maximum of $4,000. If states follow, then this used EV tax credit will be about $5,000 per car. The result is that the same car will be subsidized with this owner tax credit at least twice, when new and used, for a total of about $15,000 per vehicle, or more if it is sold again.
      • Tax credits to build over 500,000 charging stations all over the USA for the next 10 years. This is limited to $100,000 per “alternative fuel refueling property” so will cost $50 billion over the 10 years. This is an indirect subsidy to EVs since it would otherwise be paid by an increase in the price of the electric power purchased by the EV owner. If this is spread over 5 million EVs, it is at least $10,000 per car, but let’s call it $5,000 per car. But the way the IRA language reads, it could be interpreted as $100,000 per charging bay in the charging station in which case, it would be very much more. A news release by Mercedes Benz on January 4, 2023 says they will be building 400 EV charging stations in the USA containing 2,500 charging bays at a cost of $1.05 billion. That is $2.5 million per station and about $420,000 per charging bay.
      • Depending on how the language in the Act is interpreted, there are grants for a wide variety of “green” projects that include batteries and EV related projects. For now, we will not include these potential subsidies.
      • Tax credits to fleet owners who convert their commercial vehicles to EVs. These are a minimum of $7,500 per vehicle and rise to $40,000 per vehicle for vehicle weights over 14,000 pounds.
      • For states and municipalities, grants and rebates of 100% of the value of school buses, garbage trucks, and the like, converted to EVs.
      • These last two items for commercial and municipal vehicles combined are potentially the largest subsidy of them all, but it is difficult to convert it to a per vehicle number for our purposes. Let’s just count it as $7,500 per vehicle for the two combined, although it will be a great deal more.
      • Battery manufacturer subsidies. These are in the IRA, the 2021 Infrastructure Bill, and the CHIPS and Science Act and are estimated to amount to about $142 billion of direct subsidies over the next 10 years. Not all of this is for EVs, but they will get the biggest share through tax credits to cover 30% of EV battery manufacturing costs. In addition, companies making the battery components in the USA will get a tax credit of 10% of their costs. That adds up to 40% of the cost of battery production. If we assume that an EV battery costs about $10,000 to produce, then this is a further subsidy of about $4,000 per car, and double that if the car needs a new battery.

All these subsidies are cash paid, by various routes, to either the buyer, the dealer, the vehicle manufacturer, the battery maker, states and municipalities, fleet owners, or charging stations. All of it comes from you, dear taxpayer. I doubt that Mr. Dyson figured these gargantuan subsidies into his decision, but could it have changed his mind? And did Mr. Musk count on these government handouts before he founded Tesla – this makes him one of the largest recipients of government largesse?

There are probably more EV subsidies buried in the IRA and other legislation that I have missed, but let’s add up these that I have identified with certainty, all on a per EV basis:

Consumer new EV purchase state and federal tax credits:    $10,000
Consumer used EV purchase tax credit:$5,000
Carbon credits:$4,000
Charging station subsidy:$5,000
Commercial fleet conversions to EVs:$7,500
Battery maker subsidy:$4,000

    This is a low number since I have underestimated most items, but it exposes the enormous cost of the state and federal subsidies to force conversion to EVs.

    If you would like to check out these subsidies, they are in a Department of Energy summary to be found here. The battery part is summarized in Chemical and Engineering News, January 9/16, 2023 titled “Public money will make 2023 the year of the battery factory.”

    2. Battery Life. An EV is powered by a battery which is a large part of the vehicle. The years of constant charging, especially at high power, and discharging, especially in heat or cold, make the battery less efficient so that, after 5 years it only has about 60% of its range when new. To restore the range needs a new battery, a major expense of about $10,000, and also a major source of pollution to manufacture it.

    3. Battery Size. Tesla S and Y batteries weigh 1,200 pounds and 1,700 pounds, respectively. Since the battery is so large and heavy, manufacturers have to remove all the weight they can to maintain performance. So, the EV car body is lighter than an ICE car and more vulnerable in an accident. Just look at the door thickness in an EV compared to your ICE car.

    4. Battery performance. In hot and cold weather, performance is much less than at ambient temperatures, leading to lower distance ranges and faster battery deterioration. At 32oF, a common temperature in the USA, the performance is about 70% of that at 70oF. Deterioration at higher temperatures, such as in a Phoenix summer, is similar, especially if air conditioning is used. So, a 300-mile range can rapidly deteriorate to about 200 miles.

    5. Zero Emission. Maybe they are when moving, but they are not zero emission when all the operations needed to power them are included. Most important are the emissions from generating the electricity to run them. Of course, if all this comes from renewable sources, then this is not a factor, but that will never happen. It is generally accepted that one 42-gallon barrel of oil equivalent can generate about 650 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity which translates to about 15 kWh/gallon of oil. Allowing for about 10% losses in transmission and storage gives about 13.5 kWh/gallon. Or about 7.5 gallons per 100 kWh “fill-up” (assuming a 200-mile range, that corresponds to about 28.5 mpg equivalent, about 1 mpg less than my diesel BMW X-5). So, to generate the electricity to power a Tesla S produces about the same “emissions” as 7.5 gallons of gasoline/diesel. But, add to this the emissions from manufacturing the battery and the car, which are at least as much as from generating the electric power, and an EV generates about the same emissions as a comparable ICE car.

    6. Lower Fuel Cost? To fully charge a 100 kWh EV battery can cost between $5 and $60 depending on your location, time of day and power of the charge. Electricity can cost as low as 5 cents/kWh for super off-peak or as high as 60 cents/kWh on-peak. That compares with about $60-80 per 20-gallon fill-up for an ICE and so there is a significant savings if you can charge off-peak. That’s feasible when charging overnight at home but not on a road trip or, if you live in an apartment, you will pay full price at public charging stations.

    7. Charging Time. On high power, a full charge takes about an hour, but it is much longer on the lower power outlet in your garage. Compare with a 5-minute ICE fill-up. And if you live in an apartment in a city, good luck with finding a charging point and expect to pay full price per kWh!

    8. Insurance. About 30% more for EVs. They are more expensive to repair and if the battery is damaged, it’s over $10,000!

    9. Power Loss. Batteries leak power when not in use, especially in cold weather. ICEs do not.

    10. Grid Dependency. An EV is dependent on using the electric power grid for charging. This can be unreliable, especially when several million EVs are tapping into it or an enemy takes down the grid! Further, if government wants to control you, they will shut down the grid or simply raise the electricity price sky high. There is no other option to find power (by law, your solar system cannot run when the grid is down. A generator requires fuel). ICEs also shut down if access to refined oil is cut off, but with many oil companies and refineries, that is unlikely; gas and diesel can also be easily stored whereas electricity cannot be – battery technology means only small amounts of electricity can be stored, at high cost.

    Now you have more of the facts to ponder and make your decision. I think I will hang on to my diesel BMW forever with its 29 mpg, 650-mile range and minimal pollution!

    When James Dyson made his decision to end his EV project, he had most of these points known to him. The exception was the huge government subsidies. Would he have made a different decision if he had known of all these subsidies? I leave it to you to decide.

    If you are an EV enthusiast, you need to remember that all these subsidies will eventually expire, possibly sooner if we get a sane government that cancels all this pork. And EVs will revert to a price level very much higher than with all the government largesse. At that point, the cost of driving will be so high that few will be able to afford it, an awful prospect.

    The final question to ponder is why our government is subsidizing EVs to this extent and maybe trying to cover it up. Over $30,000 per EV is a massive amount to give away and the incremental improvement in emissions is close to zero. I do not know the answer to this question, but it must be addressed.

    Electricity is a wonderful source of power, but it suffers from a major drawback that it cannot be stored efficiently. Using electricity to power transportation works very well when it directly drives the locomotive such as with trains, trolley buses, subways, and electric trams all of which draw their power from continuous power-carrying wires or rails that they are in contact with, and the power does not have to be stored. Where the electricity has to be stored in a battery to provide the power, it becomes a very expensive mode of transportation and is very inefficient. Batteries have inherent drawbacks based on the laws of physics and chemistry, and it is unlikely that scientific breakthroughs will be made that change these conclusions.

    Even if EVs made a difference in emissions, is the factor that drives all this, namely the climate change theory of warming caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, correct? I can summarize for you five reasons why the data show it is not correct and therefore why there is no climate crisis:

    1. The level of CO2 in our air today is 0.04%, or 400 parts per million (PPM), a minute level. And it has only increased by 0.01% over the past 50 years. As a scientist (PhD chemistry), I have seen no plausible explanation of how the increase of 0.01% CO2, or 1 part in 10,000, or even much more, can cause dangerous warming.

    2. While CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas (GHG), it’s contribution to global warming is minute and is swamped by that of water which comprises over 3% of our air, or 30,000 PPM. Water is a much stronger GHG, present in about 100 times the concentration of CO2. Without water in the air, the average temperature of the earth would be an uninhabitable 17oF. Without CO2 in the air, we would not notice the minute temperature difference but plants would not grow and we would all perish.

    3. There has been no increase in severe weather events over the last 50 years.

    4. Ice shrinks when it melts so it is not going to cause sea level to rise unless the melting ice is on land. Sea level rise is not accelerating. It has been rising at the same minute rate per year (about 1/8th inch annually) in the last 50 years as it has been for centuries.

    5. CO2 is plant food and more in the air is better. The increase from 0.03% to 0.04% has been a major contributor to the green revolution in agriculture. If we actually achieve zero carbon, we will be putting our farming productivity, and our survival, at risk. Plus, a little warming would be a good thing since cold weather kills over 10 times as many people every year as hot weather.

    If you want to comment on this factual piece, I can be reached at

    Terry Winters is a retired venture capitalist and biotechnology CEO residing in Scottsdale, Arizona. He has a BSc. and PhD in chemistry from the University of Wales. His science training gives him the basis to understand much of the complicated science behind climate change. Over the past 5 years, he has examined the data in detail and has not seen any plausible scientific theory or any data to support the accusation that CO2 is responsible for dangerous global warming. He is an active member of the CO2Coalition which comprises over 150 scientists, mostly with PhDs in physics, chemistry or climate science, who are dedicated to publicizing the truth that there is no climate crisis and that more CO2 in our atmosphere is a good thing that enables faster plant growth and therefore more productive agriculture.

    Arizona Leaders Advance Electric Vehicles Despite Evidence Debunking ‘Green’ Benefits

    Arizona Leaders Advance Electric Vehicles Despite Evidence Debunking ‘Green’ Benefits

    By Corinne Murdock |

    Despite mounting evidence debunking the environmental friendliness of electric vehicles (EV), Arizona’s leaders continue to roll out EV infrastructure.

    The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Tucson, and Phoenix have all rolled out plans to expand EV infrastructure, as well as encourage citizens to switch to electric while transitioning government vehicles to electric. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs pledged to electrify all state vehicle fleets as part of her “clean” energy plan. The state legislature also considered bills to advance EV usage earlier this year, such as SB1102 to require new homes to have EV charging.

    In the latest episode of acclaimed reporter John Stossel’s “Stossel TV,” Manhattan Institute physicist Mark Mills shared that EVs won’t change oil use and carbon dioxide emissions “in any significant way.” Mills revealed that even 300-500 million EVs would only reduce world oil consumption by 10 percent. That’s the entire US population, and 5-8 percent of the world population over 16 years old. There are approximately 15-18 million EVs in the world presently.

    Most oil use comes from airplanes, buses, and big trucks — even the mining equipment to obtain copper required for EVs. 

    “It won’t change because those trucks last 40 years,” said Mills. 

    That’s another debunked claim of EV’s environmental friendliness: the mining process requires a lot of the earth for very little. One battery requires about 500,000 pounds of minerals and rock to be mined. The mining process pollutes the surrounding environment, resulting in most operations to take place abroad in Chile and the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

    Altogether, the mining, manufacturing, and shipping process for EVs emits 10 to 20 tons of carbon dioxide. 

    Claims that EVs reduce carbon emissions are only true insofar as an EV is driven 100,000 miles at minimum. Even then, that mileage reduces emissions by up to 20 or 30 percent. The average EV battery lasts around 200,000 miles, though an EV warranty is 100,000 miles. (Tesla projects that it may develop a million-mile battery, though their cars are among the most expensive on the market). With every charge cycle, the battery pack loses capacity and reduces driving range. 

    Further, only 12 percent of electricity production comes from wind or solar power. Most comes from burning natural gas or coal. That’s nothing to say of the potential strain on the country’s energy grids under the Biden administration’s planned EV network, or under varying weather conditions such as cold snaps and heat waves.

    EV sales increased 66 percent this year, following government and corporation efforts over the past several years to eradicate gas-powered vehicles and encourage EV buying through incentives like tax credits. California banned the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035, with Massachusetts and Washington following via trigger laws. Other states are on track to phase out gas vehicles over the next few decades, including Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New York, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Rhode Island.

    That’s in addition to nearly all major car brands pledging to shift toward mostly or exclusively EV within the next several decades, including General Motors (Chevrolet, GMC, Buick), Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Rolls-Royce, Volvo, and Audi.

    Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to

    Our Elitist Environmental Experts Are Driving Us Over the Cliff

    Our Elitist Environmental Experts Are Driving Us Over the Cliff

    By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

    Leftist thought leaders insist that we are facing an environmental holocaust unless we immediately, drastically reduce carbon emissions.

    Yet it’s curious. The governing and influence elites demand massive societal sacrifice, while they are apparently not concerned enough to alter their own extravagant lifestyles. They own multiple sumptuous homes, cars, and yachts. They fly individual private jets to their annual meetings in Davos, Switzerland, where they assure each other that it is their solemn responsibility to save the rest of us from ourselves.

    They refuse to engage in thoughtful debate on any notions that challenge their woke orthodoxy. Instead, those advocating ideas different from their own are dismissed as “climate deniers.”

    Take electric vehicles. EVs are touted by enviros as the obvious antidote to carbon belching SUVs. But they aren’t.

    Fossil fuels produce most of their electricity. The manufacture and disposal of batteries—and the rare metals required—have significant environmental impacts. A growing consensus now acknowledges that EVs may produce more net carbon emissions than today’s cleaner burning gasoline cars.

    You would think anyone with genuine concern about the environment might reconsider EV policy. But they don’t engage. Instead, they soldier on, funding yet more subsidies, benefits, and charging stations. Taxpayers get dinged for billions with no discernible benefit.

    Clearly, to these decision makers, climate change isn’t about climate. It’s about power. Egomaniacal persons of all stripes throughout history have had the unquenchable desire to control the lives of others and operate the world from their centers of power. Think Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Gates, Zuckerberg – make your own list.

    One irony is that the consequences of rising temperatures may not be that harmful. According to Swedish economist Bjorn Lomborg, higher temperatures are far less harmful than lower ones.

    500,000 people worldwide die annually from heat-related causes, while 4.5 million die from cold. Over the last decade or so, rising temperatures have caused 116,000 more heat deaths yearly, but also 283,000 fewer cold-related deaths per year. How many hysterical accounts of coming devastation would you have to read to learn that?

    It’s not the heat but the political responses to climate change that are causing real harm. Low-cost synthetic fertilizer is an innovation that has greatly enhanced our ability to feed the world. Because it is made from natural gas, climate activists have limited its use, even though 1 billion people worldwide are facing imminent threat of starvation.

    Other pressing needs have been drowned out by the insistence on prioritizing climate change. Recent increases in energy prices were exacerbated by Biden’s self-proclaimed war on fossil fuels. Europe’s refusal to capitalize on its shale reserves and their shunning of nuclear power also resulted in higher energy prices and lower security, as did subsidies of solar and wind, which are still not substantial, reliable suppliers to the electrical grid.

    The costs of climate activism will be even higher if governments seriously pursue their stated aim of producing net zero emissions by 2050. The truth is that climate is a global problem. With our current technologies and geopolitical realities (i.e., China) such goals are simply not attainable.

    But the price for such climate grandstanding would be $5 trillion per year for 30 years according to McKinsey. Every single American would have to pay $5,000 per year to achieve even 80% of the goal by mid-century.

    Ordinary citizens are getting fed up with these elitist obsessions. Polls show climate change far down the list of Americans’ concerns.

    40,000 Dutch farmers recently held a mass protest against government mandates that nitrogen-oxide and ammonia emissions, produced by livestock, be reduced by 80%. The government of Sri Lanka resigned after a ban on synthetic fertilizers decimated food production and the economy collapsed.

    Remember, we’re only in the early phases of the alarmists’ grand plans to reorder society. Already, California and other areas, possibly including Arizona, are facing the threat of rolling blackouts. An EU official recently warned that millions of Europeans may not be able to heat their homes this winter.

    Climate change is manageable through mitigation and innovation. The fabulously expensive, impractical nostrums being pushed by our self-appointed experts are a recipe for human suffering and chaos.

    Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.