LMD June 2023

4 Legged Tractors

Having my syndicated column in numerous farm publications means I get to read all about farming and for many years now I’ve been reading about something called “The Right To Repair.” Farmers know a lot about the subject, but cowboys, not so much. Yet I can easily see how ranchers may one day face the same issues farmers are dealing with now.

A Deere In The Headlights

The purpose of this story is not to throw rocks at John Deere and Company because they are a great company making great products and they provide 40 percent of all the tractors and farm equipment used by American farmers! The behemoth did 52.577 BILLION dollars of business in the 12 months ending January, 31, 2023, which represented a 25 percent increase year over year. Of that amount, $7.131 BILLION was profit.

Deere and Company has been a leader in developing farm equipment that uses onboard computers and proprietary software that has helped farmers dramatically increase their yields. These days if you buy a new piece equipment from Deere basically what you are getting is a super-computer attached to really big tires. The embedded technology in just the seat of the tractor alone is more complicated than the entire tractor was just 10 years

ago. In one court case it was Deere’s position that while the farmer may have paid for the tractor that wasn’t really for the machine but for the implied license to operate it.

From Deere’s point of view, they want to get paid for the miraculous machines they are building and they also don’t want just anyone with a wrench, or some hacker, to either steal their software or mess it up. So, Deere doesn’t want anybody else working on their machines

ics have complained that this gave Big Green a monopoly on repair.

After Russian troops stole almost $5 million worth of farm equipment from a single John Deere dealer in the Ukraine, John Deere shut down the equipment remotely, making the machines inoperable wherever they were! The implied message to farmers was if you’re not keeping up with payments Deere can shut down your tractor remotely whenever it wants.

Run Over By A Deere

by LEE PITTS

What Were They Thinking?

except John Deere dealers using John Deere parts. For several years only Deere dealers had the tools to unlock the computers on their new machines. Crit-

Farmers hate being told what they can and can’t do almost as much as ranchers do and it also irritates them that using the embedded technology in their equipment the company can see what the farmer’s yields are. Farmers argue that this real-time information can be sold to others, like commodity traders on Wall Street.

Some farmers have tried to evade the giant company’s clutches by downloading pirated John Deere software. Farmers also resented paying half a million dollars for a tractor or combine and then not having the right to work on it themselves. They allege it’s just another way for Deere and Co. to make more money because the repair work done in a Deere shop is from three to six times more profitable than selling tractors and genuine Deere parts can be from six to ten times more costly.

Farmers also complain that it can cost a thousand dollars or more just to truck a tractor or a combine to the nearest Deere dealership just to clear some codes in the onboard computer. As a result of this ongoing war the price of old farm equipment without any computers has skyrocketed and in many cases that old tractor that a farmer has fixed up just to drive in parades has now been put to use plowing, disking and planting.

continued on page 2

Governor Tells Colorado They Will Not Be Getting Any Wolves From Wyoming

Colorado is having trouble finding wolves for its reintroduction program scheduled to begin this year. Gov. Mark Gordon says they won’t be getting any wolves from Wyoming.

BY MARK HEINZ / COWBOY STATE DAILY

With the deadline looming to begin its wolf reintroduction program, Colorado isn’t sure where to get wolves, but it’s clear it won’t be from Wyoming, Governor Mark Gordon said.

“Wyoming is opposed to sending Wyoming wolves to Colorado because we carefully and scientifically manage our wolf population,” Gordon said in a statement sent to Cowboy State Daily.

“We have target population numbers, and reducing those numbers to support a translocation in Colorado may jeopardize those successful management plans,” Gordon said. “In addition, it is likely that Wyoming wolves may very well desire to return to their home ranges, once again putting them in danger as they would likely traverse unsuitable areas of potential conflict.”

Barking Up The Wrong Tree

Under its reintroduction program, the Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) has until December 31, 2023 to start putting new wolves on the ground there. Its remains unclear where those wolves will come from.

Colorado is reaching out to several other states, according to a statement from CPW passed along to Cowboy State Daily by agency spokesman Joey Livingston.

“While there have been no ‘formal’ conversations, there have been informal discussions with northern Rockies states, and CPW expects these conversations to begin in earnest if the Final Wolf Restoration and Management Plan is approved today,” according to the agency.

Only So Many States Have Them

Colorado would prefer to get wolves from the northern Rockies – Wyoming, Montana or Idaho. However, Oregon and Washington might also have viable wolf populations to draw from.

Channel 9News in Denver reported that Montana and Idaho also would likely refuse Colorado’s request for wolves, narrowing the options. And even getting wolves from Oregon or Washington could be doubtful.

Narrowly Approved Plan

Colorado’s wolf reintroduction program was initiated by Proposition 114, which barely squeaked by Colorado voters in 2020 by a margin of 50.91 percent to 49.09 percent.

Colorado already has one established wolf pack, in North Park in the northwestern part of the state along the Wyoming border.

That pack was formed by wolves that migrated from Wyoming, and those wolves already are stirring up controversy having killed numerous livestock animals and dogs, which drew fiery

The reintroduction plan calls for 30 to 50 more wolves to be moved to Colorado over

continued on page 3

What were those adventurous vagabonds who came west 150 years ago thinking when in just the first 400 miles of their journey from the Platte River to Fort Laramie, they saw 12 graves to the mile documented by shallow graves and crosses made from bedposts, wagon boards and double trees? I don’t know about you, but I’d have given serious consideration to doing a quick about-face and running back home to momma.

How did past generations survive without childproof lids on pill bottles or seatbelts in our vehicles? The teeth marks in the rails of the family crib that was painted with lead-based paint are still visible, yet here I am 71 years later and not yet totally demented or deranged. When I think of the busy roads, avenues and streets we darted in and out of on our bikes, not always following our mother’s advice to “look both ways,” it’s a miracle most of us survived. Especially when you consider that our miniature and not fully developed brains weren’t cushioned, insulated and sheltered from our own stupidity by the now-mandated hard hats. Was a life just worth less a couple centuries ago when mothers often gave birth to a dozen or so kids knowing that several of them would die before they reached the age of five from eating lye, falling down wells or from scarlet fever, smallpox, polio, the grip, dropsy, or other diseases that no longer strike fear in households? Were mothers having ‘extra kids’ or ‘spares’ to insure there’d be enough help during harvest, or was their loss just considered ‘shrink,’ as if kids were a steer on the hoof? Did mothers love their kids any less than they do now?

What were black slaves thinking when they were put on the auction block and sold like they were cattle or swine. And how did one man ever get it in his head that he had the right to ‘own’ another human being? (Even American Indians owned slaves.)

What were those brave young men thinking when they stormed the beaches of Normandy and saw their fellow soldiers being mowed

continued on page 3

LEE PITTS

Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

Saying things that need to be said.

4-LEGGED TRACTORS from page 1

There have been several lawsuits including one Federal Class Action suit and in January Deere signed a memorandum of understanding with the American Farm Bureau Federation that’s supposed to ensure that farmers can repair their own equipment, but many farmers have their doubts.

The Deere Equivalent

Even though cattle don’t break down, have no onboard computers or sensors and don’t require mechanics or expensive parts, the same concept could be applied to cattle in the future because the real issue at the heart of this brouhaha is who owns the intellectual property?

Although bulls and cows currently have no oil filters to change or interchangeable parts what they do have are genes with embedded genetic codes that could easily become the equivalent of the propitiatory embedded software like that sold in tractors.

Yes. Please subscribe me to the Livestock Market Digest for: □ 1 Year at $25 □ 2 Years at $35

lit

Registered cattle breeders and hybrid operations have spent years and lots of money to improve the genetics of their cattle. Currently, unless the purebred breeder is retaining a partial ownership, when a bull is sold at his bull sale the revenue stream ends with what the bull brings on sale day. But what if you were not actually buying a bull on sale day but merely buying the right to use the genetics of that specific purebred producer? And suppose there were a few strings attached?

Like Playing Russian Roulette

Anybody who goes grocery shopping has witnessed the trend towards private labels. Whether it be a jar of jelly at Krogers or a Safeway chub of ground beef, brand names are forcing the no-names off the shelves. It’s happening for a reason: millennials, Gen X and Boomers prefer name-brand fresh meat and poultry. The grocery chains have noticed this trend and many have brought production in-house to boost supply chain efficiencies. For example, Kroger, Walmart and Albertsons own their own dairy production facilities and Costco brought poultry production in house for its popular $5 rotisserie chicken.

The main driver of this move was the consistency of commodity beef... or we should say, lack of consistency. Ever since the beef industry went crazy in the 1970’s attempting to produce a consistent beef product by using more than 80 different breeds of cattle, buying beef at a grocery store was like playing a less-lethal form of Russian roulette; the consumer had a one in six shot at having a pleasant dining experience.

As beef demand and consumption plummeted the giant chains got to the point of needing to control the genetics of the cattle to ensure the consumer would get a good steak. To do that they needed purebred producers (mostly Angus) who could guarantee them consistent quality in huge volume. At the same time, top purebred and hybrid beef producers were trying to increase the value of their cattle, and that of their bull customers, by hooking up with feeders, packers and even retailers so that hopefully the bull customer would get a bigger share of the food dollar, be grateful, and become a lifetime customer.

Branding The Cowboys

Perhaps the most obvious example of this trend in the beef business is 44 Farms in Texas who has a deal to sell their beef to Walmart. The giant retailer first entered the beef industry in 2019 and in January 2020, Walmart opened its first facility to support its beef supply chain with a 201,000-square-foot production house in Georgia operated by FPL Food.

Livestock Market Digest (1SSN 0024-5208) (USPS NO. 712320) is published monthly except semi-monthly in September in Albuquerque, N.M. 87104 by Livestock Market Digest, Inc.

Periodicals Postage Paid at Albuquerque, N.M.

POSTMASTER-Send change of address to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

Subscribe Today

For advertising, subscription and editorial inquiries write or call: Livestock Market Digest P.O. Box 7458 Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

Telephone: 505-243-9515

Fax: 505-349-3060 www.aaalivestock.com

EDITORIAL and ADVERTISING STAFF

CAREN COWAN Publisher

LEE PITTS Executive Editor

CHUCK STOCKS Publisher Emeritus

RANDY SUMMERS Sales

FALL MARKETING EDITION AD SALES

RANDY SUMMERS, 505-850-8544 email: rjsauctioneer@aol.com

FIELD EDITOR

DELVIN HELDERMON, 580/622-5754 1094 Koller Rd, Sulpher, OK

ADMINISTRATIVE and PRODUCTION STAFF

JESSICA DECKER Special Assistance

KRISTY HINDS Graphic Designer

Then in May of 2021 the retailer took the next big step to bring beef production in house. When Walmart needed a beef partner with a great reputation and the infrastructure to supply quality at scale, they hooked up with 44 Farms. Two years ago Walmart rolled out the “McClaren Farms” brand which took its name from the owner of 44 Farms. The label was launched in nearly 500 Walmart stores across the Southeastern U.S.

A Different Model

Gardiner Angus in Kansas took a somewhat different route. If you look at the pedigrees in any Angus sale catalog today, you’ll likely find a GAR bull in there someplace. Clearly, they are amongst the top five of all Angus breeders in America and many would rank them as either #1 or #2.

In an attempt to make their bulls even more valuable, Gardiner became a founding member of U.S. Premium Beef and acquired an ownership interest in National Beef which eventually sold to Marfrig, the second largest beef packer in Brazil. In one swift move Marfrig became the fourth largest beef packer in America.

Producers who are members of USPB sell their cattle to National Beef and receive payments for those cattle based on the value of each individual animal on the USPB grid. USPB members receive individual carcass data at no additional cost which they can use to make breeding decisions.

As a member of USPB, Gardiner Angus Ranch shares its delivery rights with their customers and from 1998 through 2021, GAR customers marketed 122,000 head through U.S. Premium Beef, earning an average of $92.71 per head above the base price, totaling $11,310,280.

From Bunk To Beef

The Riverbend Ranch in Idaho has taken yet another route. Frank VanderSloot began putting Riverbend together in 1992 and today Riverbend claims to have “the nation’s only fully integrated beef operation of any size. We control the entire process from start to finish, including breeding, the development of the animal every day of its life, raising the feed that is fed to the animal, the actual harvesting of the animal, and the processing of the beef. This allows us to offer a product that is far superior to any of our competitors.”

“Over the past 27 years, we have spent millions of dollars selecting and investing in individual Angus cows that have proven to be continued on page 3

the next three to five years.

“CPW will aim to capture 10 to 15 wild wolves annually from several different packs over the course of three to five years by trapping, darting or net gunning in the fall and winter,” according to Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

HERD from page 1 NOT from page 1 down in front of them? Were they simply better men than we? And what were American grunts on the ground in Vietnam thinking as they got sprayed by their own planes with cancer-causing Agent Orange and then came home to an ungrateful nation?

I wonder what it was like in the old west to order up a bride from a catalog not knowing what would step out of the stagecoach? And what did the women think when they ended up with a toothless, alcoholic loser? I suppose it’s no different than having an Internet relationship nowadays. Still...

What was my mom thinking when she got my brother and I a chemistry set for Christmas that had dozens of small bottles filled with dangerous chemicals, including acids that I used to etch the number of my Cub Scout troop on my mom’s favorite furniture? Did the very remote possibility of having your child become the next Marie Curie, Alfred Nobel or Louis Pasteur outweigh the higher probability of having your house blow up because your rug rats accidentally built a bomb?

After John Glenn became the first American to orbit the earth did it make every simple Sunday drive that followed seem rather mundane? Did a speech writer back home at NASA write Neil Armstrong’s now-famous soliloquy when he stepped on the lunar surface for the first time and called it, “One small step for man?” And where did Alan Shepard get the golf club he used to hit a golf ball farther than anyone had ever hit one before? Did he yell “fore?”

What was the ‘risk versus reward’ ratio when the first man ever hopped on the back of a bull to ride him; what makes a person want to drive 300 miles per hour; and why did those in charge of building the Golden Gate Bridge wait until 23 men had fallen to their death before they thought to put up a net to catch them?

Did we discount the value of human life in the past? ▫

4-LEGGED TRACTORS

“Once captured, wolves will be treated and vaccinated as appropriate and determined by veterinarians, and will then be transported to Colorado where they will be taken to the release areas and the transport crates will be opened.”

‘Wyomingites Know All Too Well’

The situation in Colorado sounds familiar to Wyomingites, and it probably won’t end well, Gordon said.

“Wyomingites know all too well the challenges associated with introducing a new large carnivore into an existing ecosystem,” he said. “It does not matter that the wolves may have been a part of the system in generations past; it is still a huge change.

“Wyoming has the scars and lessons learned from the reintroduction of wolves. Originally, gray wolves were to be a Yellowstone National Park population, but not to the surprise of any; wolves have been found throughout the state now.”

Wyoming is opposed to Colorado’s plan “for a variety of reasons,” Gordon said. “Our current wolf management plan is working, and it works because it is designed to manage wolves in biologically and socially suitable habitats and to keep wolves out of areas of the state where conflicts would be highest.

“Our border with Colorado is an unsuitable area for wolves, and that would mean more human conflicts. Resolution of conflicts is almost always deadly to wolves.”

outliers in beef flavor and tenderness. They are the foundation of our herd. We now have thousands of cattle with those very special genetics, providing us with a vastly superior product. We own and operate our own 210,000-square-foot processing facility located right on the ranch. It is one of the most state-of-the-art processing facilities in the United States.”

“Riverbend runs 1,400 registered Angus, plus embryo recipient cows, to produce bulls to sell, and replacement heifers for their registered herd. The ranch also runs 3,500 to 5,000 commercial cows on eight ranches in Idaho, Utah, Texas, Montana, and Hawaii. They also have a 4,000-head grow yard in Dillon, Montana. They purchase 10,000 to 15,000 calves every year from their bull customers to put in feedlots.”

Buyers of Riverbend bulls know there will be a market for their calves when they’re ready to sell. A few years ago, Riverbend started working with select local small purebred breeders, developing and marketing their bulls for them. These cooperative breeders save development costs, and their bulls gain a much larger audience of buyers.

Top Notch

Not all the innovators are Angus breeders. The DeBruyckers are third-generation Montana ranchers who have been ranching for nearly a century, with almost half this time spent raising purebred Charolais cattle and Charolais bulls. Lloyd DeBruycker began feeding cattle at a local feedyard several years ago and it was a turning point for their business. The feedyard was used as a tool to improve DeBruycker Charolais cattle both in their performance and feed efficiency as well as collecting carcass data to assure that DeBruycker genetics were top notch.

DeBruyckers were one of the first, if not the first, to develop a “lease bull program.” The initiative enabled people to use Charolais bulls in an affordable

manner which, in turn, created many new customers for the Charolais breed. The DeBruycker family has also been strong supporters of Charolais crossbred calves, both in the auction barn and at private treaty.

A Few Predictio ns

We are already seeing purebred and hybrid bull producers use cooperators to produce cattle using their genetics. We will likely see more of this in the future and in addition on sale day we will see more bred and open heifers with the same genes sold for a very simple reason: Not only do the bulls have to be of the utmost quality to fit in a branded beef program but so do the cows.

It’s also likely that you’ll have to pick a team you want to play with. It will be like the tractor business only instead of bleeding red, blue, green or yellow, you’ll have to select between black, white or red.

All your cows will be enrolled in a program and will have an RFID tag in their ear with additional embedded electronics beyond merely identification. Every cow will be a computer on four legs. If you sign up with one of these foundation herds, or sell your cattle to them, you won’t be allowed to buy your bulls from any other source.

The foundation seedstock producer will demand a quick turnover in your genetics perhaps replacing a third of your bull battery every three years to integrate the newest genetics. There will be no keeping of some of your bull calves as herd sires, and when you replace your bulls you’ll have to sell the old ones directly to a packer so that no cheapskate can buy the superior genetics at a discount.

The foundation herd will have field men who will visit the cooperating herds to give direction and to audit the operation. Any cow that will not meet specific requirements will be hauled to the nearest slaughterhouse. In this new frontier “good enough” will no longer be good enough.

The field man will also want to make sure that your neighbor’s bulls aren’t breeding any of your cows and vice versa. The field man may get so picky as to check your fences, making sure biosecurity measures are being followed. In other words, you’ll be an independent contractor married to the genetics of a foundation purebred herd. The question then becomes, whose team will you play for and how will you react when they start dictating terms like John Deere has done?

You’ll either follow this business model or you’ll have to become a low-cost commodity beef producer and then your competition will be Brazil, Canada, Australia, Mexico and the other two dozen countries we import 8-20 percent of our beef from. ▫

Buy Feed Now, Pay Later

Feed Financing Program with Deferred Payments

Rising interest rates. High input costs. Inflation. These are all fiscal challenges facing cattle, sheep and goat operations around the country. Fortunately, livestock markets are on the upswing, providing momentum to capitalize on the situation with the right tools and timing.

“The 6-4-0 Feed Financing Program can help offset one of the most significant expenses on your livestock operation by delaying payments until it works for you,” says Jay Rogers, director of dealer operations for Purina Animal Nutrition. “The 6-4-0 Feed Financing Program allows you to defer paying for select Purina® cattle, sheep or goat nutrition products for up to six months. It gives you the flexibility to pay for feed after your livestock have been marketed.”

How it works

Purina has collaborated with John Deere Financial to offer this unique feed financing tool. The 6-4-0 Feed Financing Program has been available regionally and is now offered nationally through participating Purina® dealers.

“Registration in the program is done through participating Purina® dealers, and the enrollment periods last six months,” Rogers says. “During the six-month enrollment period, Purina pays the interest charge.”

“The six-month enrollment timing aims to match when you provide supplemental nutrition to cattle, sheep or goats and then target to market them at the end of the enrollment period before interest begins to accrue,” Rogers says. Here are some examples of how this could work:

Cattle: You have a spring-calving cow herd, and feed financing enrollment starts on July 1. You plan to creep feed during the summer and then wean calves in the fall feeding Purina® starters and mineral. The enrollment period would end on December 31. Ideally, calves would be marketed before this date, and the feed bill would be paid with their sale proceeds.

Sheep or goats: You have a flock of sheep or a herd of goats, and feed financing enrollment starts on June 1. You’ve weaned the lambs or kids. You plan to graze throughout the summer, supplying Purina® mineral and feed tubs in the pasture with the aim to breed ewes or does towards the end of the summer. The enrollment period would end on November 30. Ideally, lambs or kids would be marketed before this date, and the feed bill would be paid with their sale proceeds.

Select Purina® cattle, sheep and goat supplements and minerals are eligible for the 6-4-0 Feed Financing Program. Feed mixed with Purina® cattle, sheep and goat supplements are also qualified to participate. Contact your Purina® dealer for complete details on eligible products.

Advantages to financing

Financing your feed, especially with an offer like this, gives you many advantages to help reach your operation goals, including:

Financial certainty knowing your rate is locked in and won’t fluctuate.

Purina covers your interest charge for up to six months during the enrollment period, which wouldn’t be the case with an operating line of credit and only comes when you pay cash.

Maximizing your cash flow by keeping your operating line and cash available for unforeseen expenses.

Offering an additional resource to help establish and maintain a successful operation.

Go to purinamills.com/6-4-0 or contact your local Purina® dealer for more details on the 6-4-0 Feed Financing Program.

Construction on Texas A&M-Fort Worth to Begin Next Month

Construction on Texas A&M-Fort Worth campus will begin next month after the Texas A&M University System’s Board of Regents on Thursday unanimously gave the go-ahead on a Law and Education Building.

The eight-story building, at a cost of $150 million, will anchor a new research campus in southeast downtown Fort Worth. It is the first of three high-rise structures to be built and financed by the Texas A&M System, the city of Fort Worth, Tarrant County and the private sector.

“Our goal is to spur business and job growth in one of the nation’s fastest-growing cities and throughout North Texas,” said Chancellor John Sharp. “This is a gamechanger for everyone involved.”

Civic leaders from Fort

Net Zero & the Carbon Capture Pipeline

BY KATHLEEN MARQUARDT / AMERICAN POLICY CENTER

According to the UN, “Net zero is broadly the same as carbon neutral: Emissions are still being generated, but they’re offset by the same amount elsewhere. The “net total” of your emissions is then zero.” [1]

A pipeline is being set up to transport carbon dioxide (CO2) captured from ethanol, fertilizer, and other agricultural industrial plants to North Dakota and Illinois where it will be sequestered permanently. Three companies partnering with Wolf Carbon Solutions – Summit Carbon Solutions, Archer Daniel Midlands, and Navigator CO2 Ventures – plan to use pressure to liquify the CO2 so it can be transported via the pipeline, and then injected deep underground where it will be permanently sequestered.

Interesting. They are planning to bury something they consider highly dangerous to Mother Earth, underground, and hope (pray?) that it stays there.

Let’s think about that. This whole scheme (and many more equally very possibly deleterious to the earth and its inhabitants – humans, wildlife, and plants) is designed to unhook us from oil and petroleum. Why? Shortly after oil was discovered to be the great replacement of whale oil for lighting and lubrication of machinery, those in power saw the value of this natural resource and wanted full control of it – or as much as they could get.

But they soon realized that it benefited every stratum of society, down to the poorest. That wasn’t in their plans.

powers vilify it and claim it must be canceled as soon as possible.

Instead of ever asking the necessary questions here, we are to accept the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) initial document that had to be rewritten in Newspeak after it was pulled together because initially, it was no dire warning. It had to be injected with direness on steroids to make it fulfill the Club of Rome warning: The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” — There was no unusual global warming – man-made or otherwise, thus also, the name change.

Next question: where is the proof that CO2 damages our environment? It isn’t there. CO2 is an integral part of our atmosphere. The Climate Accord is based on information that has been tweaked out of any scientific certainty.

Another necessary question here: why is petroleum called a fossil fuel? From what I read some time ago, Rockefeller, after having made a great deal of money shipping the crude oil on his rail system, bought out many oil drilling companies. Then, to keep his share a large one, he claimed it was from the underground fossils and, being there were just so many fossils and wouldn’t be new ones of any number, there was a limited amount of petroleum. Thus, the number of producers must be limited.

all!” (Note: read the entire clip, it’s well worth it.)

“Any geologist will tell you, well, most geologists will tell you that OIL IS CREATED BY THE MAGMA OF THE EARTH. The oil wells in Pennsylvania that were pumped out dry at the turn of the century and capped are now filled with oil again.” [3]

That alone should shut down the idea of going for Net Zero –along with the extremely foolish schemes of air and wind power, at least in the state they are in now. And electric cars! All are ridiculously expensive, are producing a very small fraction of the power we need now, and are damaging the land and killing birds. If we were to eliminate all the power except wind and solar, they would produce a mere 4% of the energy we need today.

Then there is the issue of CARBON. The world is programmed (again via Newspeak) to believe carbon is BAD. According to News of Medical Life Sciences, “The human body is approximately 99% comprised of just six elements: Oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, calcium, and phosphorus”.

Oh dear, that should make you go jump off a very high cliff to save the Earth’s climate because of your body’s carbon percentage alone. And, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) “Carbon dioxide or CO2 is an essential part of the cycle of life. Without CO2, plants will die off, and without plants, the earth’s biological food chain would be terminally broken. We cannot live without carbon dioxide.” (Emphasis in the original)

Worth and Tarrant County recruited the Texas A&M System to help address workforce issues and economic development. For example, half of the 1.2 million adults in Tarrant County, age 25 and older, lack a college degree. The A&M System will bring its research, education and service opportunities to help workers and employers.

The Law and Education Building, which will become the new home to Texas A&M’s fast-growing School of Law, also will house courses in engineering, health care, nursing and other subjects offered by Texas A&M University, Texas A&M Health, and Tarleton State University.

The campus, to be built on four city blocks, eventually will include a Research and Innovation Building where the private sector, including some of the

Now we are to be unhooked from so-called fossil fuel — petroleum. Why? Because, we are told, it produces much of the carbon emissions that are causing Climate Change, nee Manmade Global Warming. So, the power elite have declared petroleum (the most readily available energy source that is reliable, doesn’t cause black lung disease, and isn’t “laced with radioactive thorium and uranium, which result in especially detrimental health effects to the people mining it (often children), as well as the air, water, and soil around it”, [2] is fairly easy to access, is found all over (actually under) the earth, and is renewable. So, it must be banned! In true Newspeak, the

city’s largest employers, and the A&M System’s agencies can work together. The Gateway Building will house offices, more classroom and meeting

But is it a fossil fuel? According to L. Fletcher Prouty, “oil is a renewable and abiotic fuel” (not from fossils). “The Origins of Oil and Petroleum”,

“Oil is often called a ‘fossil’ fuel; the idea being that it comes from formerly living organisms. This may have been plausible back when oil wells were drilled into the fossil layers of the earth’s crust; but today, great quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level of any fossils. How could then oil have come from fossils, or decomposed former living matter, if it exists in rock formations far below layers of fossils – the evidence of formerly living organisms? It must not come from living matter at

spaces, and a conference center.

The goal is to complete the campus by 2027.

While construction on the Law and Education Building

So, either those trying to get rid of carbon want to get rid of us or are beyond stupid. Those making the rules are very intelligent; so, you should be able to conclude what they have in mind (yes, go jump off the cliff or they will help you in other ways. Think diseases, pandemics, and starvation).

To continue explaining the Newspeak, blue smoke and mirrors, gobbledygook, this time re why Net Zero is impossible. In an in-depth report explaining just that, David Wojick from CFACT notes:

■ Renewables cannot be made reliable with storage so their penetration must be constrained and managed.

■ Grid scale storage at the scale needed to replace fossil fuels with wind and

begins next month, the accelerated schedule means some final design decisions, such as the color of the bricks, will be made in the coming weeks. ▫

solar is impossibly expensive. Even assuming fantastic price reductions, analysis shows the cost of the required battery storage still nearly equals the $23 trillion annual American GDP.

■ We now know that the battery storage for the entire American grid is impossibly expensive … Based on his work, which only covered 48 states, our working estimate of the required storage is an amazing 250 million MWh. America today has less than 20 thousand MWh of grid scale battery storage, which is next to nothing. Grid scale batteries today cost around $700,000 a MWh. For 250 million MWh we get an astronomical total cost of $175 trillion dollars just to replace today’s fossil fuel generated electricity needs with wind and solar. Even the fantastically lowcost estimates that some people are proposing puts the cost around the total GDP of America. Even worse, if we get the electric cars the Biden Administration is calling for, these astronomical numbers could easily double.

On top of those, he adds “America’s grid is steadily becoming more and more unreliable. The grid is sick and getting sicker.” [4]

We have pipelines being constructed for no legitimate reason other than to redistribute middle-class income because there were just so many fossils to provide us with oil and petroleum. Oops, that isn’t so, but there are many more things to do with Sustainable Development and forming a new-world order that are as real as Climate Change (check out Just Transition {goes with Smart and 15-minute cities} in APC’s Activist Handbook, p.85)

Ask yourself why people would want to construct a pipeline to sequester CO2 underground in five states when that pipeline will be 1,300 miles long across these states, ripping out, permanently, all the topsoil along it, thus it will no longer provide crops for food, or land for homes, churches, hospitals, playgrounds or anything else. It will cost billions of dollars to do what? Obviously, it is not needed for the purpose we are told it will serve; we have no need to rid the earth of carbon; it is a true fairy tale – and an evil one, to boot. What is the real purpose? In my humble opinion, besides uprooting many people, redistributing our wealth, and making millions of acres forever worse than fallow, it will aid in fulfilling the Wildlands Project[5]

It may not be in your state now – or ever. But you may just want to support, by words, those fighting it. You never know when it will reach you. And if it never does, you are paying for this by way of your tax dollars to provide the strings to feed the non-governmental organizations (and their global elite leaders) who are behind this nasty piece of illusion dressed up as vital to the entire Earth’s survival – with lipstick, so you know it’s a sow.

www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zerocoalition

www.theguardian.com/sustainablebusiness/rare-earth-mining-china-socialenvironmental-costs prouty.org/oil.html

www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/WOJICKREPORT.pdf

www.narlo.org/Wildlands%20project_ war.pdf

Living with Equity in a Free Society

BY TOM DEWEESE

Social Equity has become the root for almost every policy coming from government, school curriculum, human resources on the job, and even in our entertainment. It’s a revolution intended to change our entire social structure to affect how we all interact with each other.

To understand the full impact “equity” will have on our daily lives, let’s look at its intended definition, as prepared by its promoters. United Way of the National Capital Area (a longtime charity) defines Equity as “The quality of being fair and impartial. Social equity is impartiality, fairness and justice for all people in social policy. Social equity takes into account systemic inequalities to ensure everyone in a community has access to the same opportunities and outcomes. Equity of all kinds acknowledges that inequalities exist and works to eliminate them…Social equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.”

Well, if our American society intends to reach the goals of true social equity, we have a lot of changes in our everyday lives that must be made! Let’s get down to it.

If we are to make sure that everyone has access to the same opportunities and outcomes, the very first thing that must be eliminated is “competition.” We must face the fact that not everyone has the same abilities or even the same intensity to get ahead. It’s just not fair to judge any action on who did it the best. Who won!

However, as our young people are growing up, they are constantly confronted with some kind of competition. Almost everything in the structure of our society is based on competition. It’s all around us. How are they to learn and accept the peaceful and honorable ideas of a world without competition? After all, isn’t competition the root of hatred, and doesn’t that lead to war?

So, logically, competition is the root of the main obstacle for imposing equity thus, if we are to have peace and harmony, we must deal with it now. Let’s take a look at all of the sources

of competition in our every day lives that indoctrinate us into rejecting the ideals of equity.

The number one source of anti-equity competition is sports. Now, some schools are already involving kids with games in which scores are not kept. That way they will learn that the true purpose of the game is the fun in playing.

The children are taught that talent and skill have nothing to do with it. Thus the vicious cutthroat attitude that comes with the completion to win is eliminated. Such an attitude will set us free and bring the new goal of world peace and love to reality.

Obviously, the influence of sports competition is huge. As the children reach high school age, the influence and pressure to join competitive sports is enormous. School spirit and honor in winning is represented in the glass trophy case, usually displayed in the lobby of the school. Friday night is game time, and almost everyone, especially parents, turn out to support the team and encourage their victory.

Those players who show the most potential then begin to compete for sports scholarships that will give them a free ride to the college of their choice. Of course, how they pick which college depends a great deal on how competitive the school is on the playing field.

Why does that matter? Because the more successful the sports program is at each college impacts the ability of players to enter professional sports after graduation. In fact, many of the finest players don’t even wait for graduation, as they receive competitive offers from the pros offering incredible salaries.

Now let’s face it. Those monster sports salaries are not equitable! Remember the definition of equity… “to ensure everyone in a community has access to the same opportunities and outcomes…” Those who don’t have the same skills also don’t have access to the same opportunities and outcomes.

Therefore, to guarantee imposition of equity into our culture, competitive sports, including professional baseball, football, basketball, soccer, hockey, etc., must be eliminated! And that will also affect the millions of fans who cheer on their favorite teams to WIN!

Do these fans understand how they are damaging the

vital culture of equity? Have you seen the riots that break out when the local team loses? Where is the peace and love we so desperately need? Ban competitive sports, NOW!

What else in our society encourages anti-equity influence? How about television game shows? If ever there was an example of a lack of equal opportunities or outcomes, these shows are it.

For example, how about Let’s Make a Deal. Almost every contestant follows the rules. They did everything asked of them. They take the time off from their normal lives to be in the studio. They arrive in costume and with enthusiasm, ready to play. Yep, it’s a competition.

But what about the ones who didn’t get called on to make a deal? They end up with nothing. Where is their equitable opportunity? Are the Zonks fair? Some got incredible prizes. Is it fair how the host gets to pick who will get to make a deal? Maybe one costume caught his eye over another. That’s competition, and it’s not equitable.

The same is true for Wheel of Fortune. Here we watch a contestant who is really rolling along, getting each letter, racking up the points. They are doing the work. But then they hit a bankruptcy and it’s all gone in a flash. Imagine their heartbreak as they see the next player win easily after they had supplied most of the necessary letters.

Perhaps the least equitable of all the game shows is Jeopardy. First, the questions are very hard. Some contestants may be in a line of work that would supply them the answers. Others would have no clue. How is that an equal opportunity?

On top of that, is the final tallies of the winnings. During the competition, each player racks up many dollar points. It can be amounts like $10,000 and more. They might be just a few points behind the final winner. They have given the game their all. But then something outrageous happens. In the final tally, the winner gets to keep all their points and have them converted into dollars. However, the second-place contestant watches all of their hard-earned points reduced to a mere $2000. Worse yet, third place only gets $1,000.

Moreover, the audiences of these shows are usually supporting different contestants to win. That continues to feed the force of competition, making a truly equitable society unreachable. It would be much more equitable and fairer if every contestant got to share in the winnings as they are divided equally. That way there would be no competition. Equitable game shows. But there are more situations in our society keeping us from reaching the goal of an equitable lifestyle.

How about politicians who compete for office? Shouldn’t government really be run by diverse volunteer committees who are just concerned that good things happen for everyone?

Elections are competition. How about the massive amounts of money which politicians are earning as they sell their favors to the highest bidders? It’s a competition to see who will get the most. And the wealth they gain is way out of range of the income of the ordinary people they pretend to represent. Nothing is more non-equitable than politicians.

And let’s not forget the competition among the news media. They not only make a mad dash to be the first to grab a story. But they are also in the game to sell how they will report a particular story. Again, as in the running of our government for all of the people, shouldn’t money be eliminated from the equation? Shouldn’t the news be reported by non-competitive, voluntary sources for the good of all?

Now, how about you and your life? Do you own a home with extra rooms? Look at all those homeless folks who lack the opportunities you’ve experienced that have allowed you to prosper. In an equitable society you would gladly share those rooms with other families.

More importantly, to be truly equitable, we should give up competing for higher paying jobs. Universal income for us all. Everyone earns the same. Stop stepping on others as you push to climb that ladder of success. It’s anti-equity and only leads to strife and unhappiness.

All of these situations feed our society against the ideals of social equity. There is no way this goal can be achieved with so many non-equity practices running our society. All must be eliminated. And kids, that includes video games that are built on the very root of competition.

We are surrounded by the ingrained negative competitive influences of the old culture. It has to be eliminated before every citizen understands the new fair equitable society and complies. As Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum has said, in a truly equitable world, “you will own nothing and be happy.” Now you know what he meant, and the only way to achieve it.

OK, enough of this globalist doublespeak. Let’s deal with reality. If you have bought into any of these ideas and want to impose an equitable world –WAKE UP! We are not sheep that just follow the leader, or chickens that just sit on the roost.

An equitable world is a controlled, well-ordered society. Anyone thinking differently, bringing new ideas or inventions, would cause a major disruption to the contrived peace. Someone might advance beyond their neighbor. That can’t be allowed.

We are human beings. We are all different, motivated by different things. Not everyone thinks alike or is motivated by the same things. Those who don’t have athletic skills may have other skills that allow them to compete in a different kind of

game. Some may like to quietly ponder ideas and solutions – they become inventors. Some may just like to help others. Perhaps they become doctors. Others excel at business and find ways to provide the supplies and services we need. All are motivated for different reasons.

Hopes, dreams, goals. Those are things you rarely hear about today. It used to be the driving force for our lives. These were the first things our parents instilled in us. “What do you want to be when you grow up?”

Competition and individual thought are the keys to happiness and freedom. Think of such a society when all competition is eliminated. Every day is exactly the same. There would be no motivation to do anything. Life would be drudgery with every step repeated over and over again.

America was born under the freedom to compete and to chase your individual dreams. It’s the reason why millions flocked here from nations where they were stuck in one place, unable to even think of dreams. Here they prospered because that’s what free humans do.

Before America, most societies were controlled by an upper class they were born into. The rulers made the rules. Everyone else simply served as a cog in the wheel. Individual thought, actions, and ideas were not allowed. People were stuck in one spot, without property or the ability to build personal wealth, and society stagnated. They were the peasant class.

There were no Edisons, Fords, or Wright Brothers to freely act on their own ideas. Why bother? It would just be taken away by the ruling class. But that was a world of equity amongst the non-ruling people, an equity of poverty.

In free America, which is now being denigrated as a racist, closed society, everyone actually did have the opportunity to throw off the labels they were born with and move forward in a life of their own choosing via their striving for better. However, that freedom was slowly destroyed by an ever-growing government plantation full of false promise and hidden controls over free action.

Now, the rulers of that plantation of deceit, who stole the liberty our Founders sought to protect, insist they have the solution to the problems they created, based on the false premise of equity.

In reality, social equity is the re-creation of the ruling class over the peasants. If you’ve bought into any of this, thinking it will bring you hope and happiness then, you are already a sad and pathetic victim of a new monarchy of misery. Existing simply as a cog in a well-controlled wheel is little more than experiencing death during life. You still have time to say NO! ▫

■ NEW LISTING! UNION CO., NM – 2,091.72 ac. (1,771.72 Deeded, 320 ac. -/+ State Lease), well watered w/three wells, two sets of steel pens. Well located just off of the Clayton/Springer hwy. on Barney Road.

■ PRICE REDUCED! CEDARVALE, NM – 7,113acre ranch (5,152 ac. +/- Deeded – 1,961 ac. +/State Lease) well fenced & watered w/good pens, new barn.

■ PRICE REDUCED! DALLAM CO, TX – 1,216.63 ac. +/- of CRP/ranchland w/irrigation, re-development potential, wells & pipelines already in place.

ESTATE GUIDE

■ KB RANCH - Kenney Co., TX – KB Ranch is a low fenced 802 +/- acre property that is surrounded by large ranches. The ranch has abundant whitetail and is also populated with turkey, dove, quail, hogs and varmint species. Axis are in the area and have been occasionally seen. The ranch lies approximately 9 miles south of Bracketville on TX 131 and is accessed by all weather Standart Road.

■ COLFAX COUNTY NM GETAWAY – 1,482.90

ac.+/- grassland (1,193.59 ac. +/- Deeded, 289.31 ac. State Lease), great location near all types of mountain recreation.

■ ANGUS, NM – 250 +/- acres with over a 1/2 mile of NM 48 frontage. Elevations from 6,800 to 7,200 feet. Two springs along a creek. Ideal for future development or build your own getaway home.

Dimmitt, TX 79027

Scott - Broker

Qualifying Broker 5:00am/10:00pm www.scottlandcompany.com

OR SMALL!

Guadalupe Co., deeded & 519 ranch on both flow daily) Sumner; wildlife, buyer looking New Mexico

Selling residential, farm, ranch, commercial and relocating properties.

Direct 575.935.9680 Office 575.935.9680 Fax coletta@plateautel.net www.clovisrealestatesales.com

AG LAND LOANS

plus two traps, seven

house, barns, corrals, semi-load and livestock scales. Priced

$2,900,000 ■

RANCH: 19.28± section

■ PECOS CO. – 637 ac., Big water, State Classified Minerals.

521 West Second St • Porta es NM 88130 575-226-0671 or 575-226-0672 fax

■ CASTRO CO., TX – 592 ac. +/_- w/remodeled 4 bd./4 ½ bath home, 160 ac. under pivot. Balance is dryland & native grass.

Buena Vista Realty

Qualifying Broker: A H (Jack) Merr ck 575-760-7521 www buenavista-nm com

■ CARSON CO., TX – 640 ac. +/- 5 mi. N of Panhandle on TX 207. 333 ac. +/- under 3 center pivot systems. One well produces 800 GPM. Permanent perimeter and cross fencing.

ranch plus 335± acre farm located in Road Forks, N.M. The ranch has 12,343± total acres, 3721± deeded, 2400± acres of NM state land, 6222± acres of BLM, 154 AYL plus six horses, ranch has adequate water storage and pipelines, headquarters has manufactured homes, shed row barns (equipment or commodity storage), plus livestock shades, corrals, cattle chute working facilities are covered cattle working facilities, north farm 163± acres, the south farm 173± acres, seller retains a “life estate”. Priced at $2,300,000

TEXAS & OKLA. FARMS & RANCHES

■ PALO DURO CREEK TREASURE – 941 acres +/- in Randall Co. NW of Canyon, Tx. STUNNING

VIEWS OVER LOOKING PALO DURO CREEK. Turn key cow/calf

• 83 acre wood home with barns, meadows and woods. Fronts State Rd. $545,000

• 160 acre Ranger Eastland Co, $560,000

521 West Second St., Portales, NM 88130

Rural Properties around Portales, NM

1242 NM 480 - Nice home on 59.7 acres, grass

427 S Rrd P 1/2 - Large nice home, lots of barns 24+ ac 1694 S Rrd 4, Great home, barns, cattle pens, location 2344 S Rrd K east of Dora, NM, great - Near wind farms

All properties excellent homes & can have horses, etc.

See these and other properties at www.buenavista-nm.com

• 270 acre Mitchell County, Texas ranch. Investors dream; excellent cash flow. Rock formation being

listing agent

575-825-1291 www.buenavista-nm.com

980 ac. +/past, land lays side of Hwy. 54. Union Co., NM –grassland w/stateremodeled in very good on pvmt. +/- heavily livestock w/ fences etc., on the front gate. scenic ac. +/- on by Lincoln in Pines & covered meadow

Penasco. This build a legacy ac. irr., on Mexico, adjoins Potential.

POTENTIAL

Texline Special, +/- w/water & a beautiful 3 bathrooms, metal shop.

• 840 Immaculate, Hunt Co, TX. Ranch. Pastures, 40 tanks, and lakes. Beautiful home, barns, and other improvements. Some minerals, game galore. All for $1.35 million.

Joe Priest Real Estate

1-800/671-4548

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RANCH PROPERTY

31 years in the ranch business - see www.ranch-lands.com for videos & brochures

DUANE & DIXIE McGARVA RANCH: approx. 985 acres Likely, CA. with about 600+ acre gravity flood irrigated pastures PLUS private 542 AU BLM permit. About 425 acres so of the irrigated are level to flood excellent pastures with balance good flood irrigated pastures. NO PUMPING COST! Dryland is perfect for expansion to pivot irrigated alfalfa if desired. Plus BLM permit for 540 AU is fenced into 4 fields on about 18,000 acres only 7 miles away. REDUCED ASKING PRICE - $3,125,000

THE SAND CAMP RANCH is a quality desert ranch with an excellent grass cover and above average improvements. Located in southern Chaves County east of the productive Pecos River Valley. The ranch is comprised of 2,598 +/- deeded acres, 6,717 NM State Lease Acres, 23,653 Federal BLM Lease Acres and 480 acres Uncontrolled, 33,448 total acres (52.26 Sections). Grazing Capacity set by a Section 3 BLM grazing permit at 408 Animal Units Yearlong. The ranch is watered by three wells and an extensive pipeline system. This ranch is ready to go, no deferred maintenance. Price: $3,870, 000. Call or email for a brochure and an appointment to come take a look.

BEAVER CREEK RANCH: about 82,000 acres - with 2,700 deeded acres plus contiguous USFS & BLM permits for 450 pair; 580+- acres irrigated alfalfa, pasture, and meadow from Beaver Creek water rights and one irrigation well. 3 homes, 2 hay barns, 4 feedlots each w/ 250 ton barns, 2 large reservoirs, can run up to

500-600 cows YEAR ROUND. REDUCED ASKING PRICE - $5,400,000

MIAMI DREAM, 14.70 +/- deeded acres. Approx 1,583 sq ft 2 bedroom 1 bath home. Real country living with barn wood siding, porches, recent remodel for remote workspace. Irrigation and horse facilities, 57 Wampler St., Miami, NM $370,000

MAXWELL 45, Excellent irrigated pasture with utilities in back of property, including installed septic system, with private views of mountains. 40 irrigable acres and a domestic water meter installed. Great to put down home and bring horses. $249,000 $239,000

CIMARRON BUSINESS, Frontage opportunity, house, big shop and office buildings, easy view off Hwy 64. Formerly known as “The Porch.” $295,000

SPRINGER VIEW, 29.70 +/- deeded acres. Large house being remodeled, shop, trees, old irrigation pond. All back off highway with great southern aspect. 311 Hwy 56, Colfax County. $209,000 $205,000

joepriestre.net • joepriestre@earthlink.com

ranch that has been owned and operated miles southeast of Corona, NM in Lincoln BLM Lease Acres and 2,240 NM State AUYL. Water provided by five wells and corrals. The ranch had a good summer for a brochure or view on my website.

BEAR CREEK RANCH: Approx. 1,278 acres winter range ground and recreational property. Located on Bear Creek and accessed from South Cow Creek Valley Road. Should be great hunting for deer, wild turkey, wild pigs, quail & owner states good trout fishing in Bear Creek. Deeded access easement thru neighbor ranches.

No improvements & very private inside the ranch.

Now only $700 per acre - $894,600

EIGHT MILE DRAW LAND 740 ± Acres of unimproved native grassland located four miles west of Roswell in the Six Mile Hill area with frontage along U.S. Highway 70/380. This parcel is fenced on three sides and adjoins 120 acres of additional land that may be purchased. Great investment. $600 per acre.

BILL WRIGHT, SHASTA LAND SERVICES, INC.

• www.ranch-lands.com

• DRE# 00963490

530-941-8100

Scott McNally, Qualifying

Bar M Real

Broker

Estate, LLC

P.O. Box 428, Roswell, NM 88202

Office: 575-622-5867 Cell: 575-420-1237

Website: www.ranchesnm.com

city limits of Roswell, NM. Six total acres Improved with a 2, 200 square foot residence, room and loafing shed. Price: $400,000

BAR LAZY 7 RANCH, Colfax County, Moreno Valley 594.38 +/- deeded acres, accessed off blacktop between Eagle Nest and Angel Fire. Historic headquarters. Currently used as summer grazing, pond and trees accessed off county road on rear of property as well. Presented “ASIS” New Survey, $4,000,000 $3,800,000

MAXWELL, 408.90 +/- Deeded Acres. 143.05 Irrigable Acres/Shares with TL pivot covering approximately 80 acres, with balance dry land. Property has one water meter used for livestock, but could support a home as well. There are two troughs located in the middle of the property. Electricity for pivot is back toward the middle of the property as well. Property has highway frontage on NM 505 and Highline Rd, a County Rd. Back up to Maxwell Wildlife area. Colfax County, NM.$599,000

Come help celebrate America’s birthday at the 100th Cimarron Maverick Club Rodeo, July 4th, 2023

575-226-0672 fax

Buena Vista Realty

Qualifying Broker: A H (Jack) Merrick 575-760-7521 www buenavista-nm com

The View

FROM THE BACK SIDE

George Washington We Need You!

I’m still waiting to see it. I haven’t even seen a hint of it. It looks to me like the Biden administration used the wrong language when it struck the term, “Build Back Better”.

I would say, “Search & Destroy” would have been an acutely more accurate slogan. From my humble abode it looks like the only thing that the Biden administration has built up is the arsenal in Ukraine and transgender bathrooms.

Everything they have touched has resulted in chaos. Look at the economy, energy, the pandemic, and the crisis at the southern border for starters.

We grassroots Americans are used to winning and going forward. That has clearly not been the case with the alleged, “Progressive Agenda” since they have been in power.

They have gone far beyond being a disappointment. They are truly trying hard to destroy America as we know it and like it.

It’s evidenced at many of our universities that no longer allow free speech and let protestors shout down speakers that they don’t agree with.

Whatever happened to teaching and enforcing manners and decorum for young people? You had better look around your own neighborhoods.

Yes, it is falling to you and me to put a stop to this nonsense. I encourage you to get on the school board, college boards, and be involved in public service anyway that you can.

America needs rural leaders that will take them on the correct path, and it starts at home. Yes, what happens locally is the first thing that will impact you and your family. Rural folks need to get involved in this fight. Make your voices heard to your congressmen and at public meetings.

Explain one more thing to me. I thought we ended segregation in this country. Now there are high schools and colleges having separate graduations for different races. To me, that is the very definition of segregation. I suspect that lawsuits will be coming.

This past Wednesday the Bureau of Land Management released its schedule for a tour of the western mountain states to present new regulations on public lands. I would like to know who gives these government agencies this much power in the first place.

This new, “Public Lands Rule” if instated would undermine the current multiple use mandate that would end a rancher’s grazing rights.

On another front, there is a big movement in the Biden administration to expand western National Parks. In Arizona that would involve the Grand Canyon National Park.

There are many ranches along the edge of the Park that will lose their grazing rights if this goes through. Also, hunters would be eliminated there as well.

According to sources, our alleged Arizona Governor Hobbs is all for this proposal. I haven’t been able to get any inside information on New Mexico, but I’m sure you will have the same problem there as well. I urge you New Mexicans to check it out.

This is not the time to ignore these things, it’s time to spring into action and be aware before they get started. It is just another case of the city slickers who have already ruined where they live trying to tell those of us who take care of the land how we should live.

Something else that you might not be aware of, since 90 percent of public lands are west of the Mississippi, the Trump administration moved the BLM headquarters from Washington, DC to Grand Junction, CO.

The Biden administration moved the headquarters back to Washington, DC from Grand Junction, CO. The reason this is important is that most large and important meetings are held at the headquarters. It is apparent that the last thing that the BLM would want is input from ranchers that live on the land that they are making decisions about.

It is abundantly clear the resident evil in charge of Washington, DC are trying hard to eliminate common sense, hardworking, law abiding, driven, and free-thinking Americans. ▫

Lab-Grown Meat’s Carbon Footprint Potentially Worse Than Retail Beef

BY AMY QUINTON / UC DAVIS

UC Davis researchers find cultivated meat is likely worse for Lab-grown meat, which is cultured from animal cells, is often thought to be more environmentally friendly than beef because it’s predicted to need less land, water and greenhouse gases than raising cattle.

But in a preprint, not yet peer-reviewed, researchers at the University of California, Davis, have found that labgrown or “cultivated” meat’s environmental impact is likely to be “orders of magnitude” higher than retail beef based on current and near-term production methods.

Researchers conducted a life-cycle assessment of the energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted in all stages of production and compared that with beef. One of the current challenges with lab-grown meat is the use of highly refined or purified growth media, the ingredients needed to help animal cells multiply.

Currently, this method is similar to the biotechnology used to make pharmaceuticals. This sets up a critical question for cultured meat production: Is it a pharmaceutical product or a food product?

“If companies are having to purify growth media to pharmaceutical levels, it uses more resources, which then increases global warming potential,” said lead author and doctoral graduate Derrick Risner, UC Davis Department of Food Science and Technology. “If this product continues to be produced using the “pharma” approach, it’s going to be

New Mexico Plant Proposed for Endangered Species Protections

Following a lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed to protect the swale paintbrush as an endangered species. The 19-inchtall, yellowish-reddish flower is known to exist in only a single location in southwestern New Mexico’s bootheel.

The swale paintbrush once lived in another location in the bootheel and in 11 spots in the Mexican states of Chihuahua and Durango. But there is no information that it survives in these previously identified habitats. It was last confirmed in Mexico in 1985.

If protections are finalized the FWS will develop a recovery plan for the plants. That plan will likely call for reintroducing the swale paintbrush to other habitats to ensure the species survives in case its current known population is wiped out..

worse for the environment and more expensive than conventional beef production.”

The scientists defined the global warming potential as the carbon dioxide equivalents emitted for each kilogram of meat produced. The study found that the global warming potential of lab-based meat using these purified media is four to 25 times greater than the average for retail beef.

A more climate friendly burger in the future?

One of the goals of the industry is to eventually create lab-grown meat using primarily food-grade ingredients or cultures without the use of expensive and energy-intensive pharmaceutical grade ingredients and processes.

Under that scenario, researchers found cultured meat is much more environmentally competitive, but with a wide range. Cultured meat’s global warming potential could be between 80 percent lower to 26 percent above that of conventional beef production, they calculate. While these results are more promising, the leap from “pharma to food” still represents a significant technical challenge for system scale-up.

“Our findings suggest that cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment than conventional beef. It’s not a panacea,” said corresponding author Edward Spang, an associate professor in the Department of Food Science and Technology.

“It’s possible we could reduce its environmental impact in the future, but it will require significant technical advancement to simultaneously

increase the performance and decrease the cost of the cell culture media.”

Even the most efficient beef production systems reviewed in the study outperform cultured meat across all scenarios (both food and pharma), suggesting that investments to advance more climate-friendly beef production may yield greater reductions in emissions more quickly than investments in cultured meat.

Developing the technology that would allow the leap from “pharma to food” is among the goals of the UC Davis Cultivated Meat Consortium, a cross-disciplinary group of scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and educators researching cultivated meat. Other goals are to establish and evaluate cell lines that could be used to grow meat and find ways to create more structure in cultured meat.

Risner said even if labbased meat doesn’t result in a more climate-friendly burger, there is still valuable science to be learned from the endeavor.

“It may not lead to environmentally friendly commodity meat, but it could lead to less expensive pharmaceuticals, for example,” said Risner. “My concern would just be scaling this up too quickly and doing something harmful for the environment.”

Other authors include Yoonbin Kim and Justin Siegel of UC Davis and Cuong Nguyen of the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

The research was funded by the UC Davis Innovation Institute for Food and Health and the National Science Foundation Growing Convergence Research grant.

US Beef Breeds Council Elects Officers

The US Beef Breeds Council (USBBC) met in late April electing new officers to preside over the organization and discuss upcoming goals. Past-President Montie Soules, of the American Shorthorn Association, oversaw the meeting and election of officers. American Wagyu Association’s Executive Director, Dr. Robert Williams was elected President and will serve a two-year term.

The USBBC is composed of United States beef breed executives. While addressing shared concerns and goals all breed associations are faced with, the USBBC also oversees the appointment of the Ultrasound Guidelines Council (UGC) executive director and board of directors.

“The US Beef Breeds Council is an opportunity for the executive officers of the national beef breed associations to network, exchange ideas, and identify common ground where we can speak as one voice to support America’s beef industry in areas of critical interest.” Says Dr. Williams, Executive Director of the American Wagyu Association.

Mark Anderson of the North American Limousin Foundation was elected Vice President of the USBBC. “The ability to serve the beef industry on a unit-

ed front on issues that enhance the economic environment, superior production practices and profitability of beef producers now and into the future, is critical to the USBBC. Working together as one effectively increases the ability to support American beef producers.”

During the April meeting, Patrick Wall, Executive Director of the Ultrasound Guidelines Council gave an update on the ongoing improvement of ultrasound technology to improve the capture of valuable carcass traits. Through the leadership of the USBBC, establishment of the Ultrasound Guidelines Council (UGC) in 2001 has led to stronger genetic prediction of carcass merit for the US beef industry. “The UGC Board has been committed to improving the accuracy of established technology as well as assessing the consistency of new digital ultrasound platforms” says Patrick Wall.

“The US Beef Breeds Council unites all US beef breeds as a strong front against those in opposition of animal agriculture and the beef industry. All our members are affected in the same way. If we unite we will be able to use all our strengths in multiple ways”, says USBBC past president Monte Soules of the American Shorthorn Association.

Bradley Joins American Gelbvieh Association

Full-Time

The American Gelbvieh Association (AGA) is pleased to announce the hiring of Shianna Bradley to the AGA staff full-time as the office services specialist. In her role, Shianna will assist AGA members and customers with submitting data to the online registry service, create educational resources for AGA members, and work with the DNA department to organize the DNA sample storage library.

“We are fortunate to have the opportunity to have Shianna joining us full-time upon her graduation,” says Megan Slater, AGA executive director. “She brings a well-suited set of talents and experience that make her a great fit for this role where she’ll continue to work closely with AGA members and customers.”

Bradley grew up in South Whitley, Indiana, where she was an active 4-H member and FFA officer. She graduated from Purdue University on May 12 with her bachelor’s degree in Animal Science with a concentration in Animal Agribusiness and a minor in Farm Management. During her time at Purdue, she was an active member of Block and Bridle. She recently worked part-time at the AGA assisting members with the AGA Online Registry Service.

“Working at the AGA the past few months has truly been informative, from learning about breeding selection tools to learning from leaders in the industry, it feels great to be able to apply my education here at the AGA,” Bradley said. “I look forward to continuing to work with such great members and diving deeper into the Gelbvieh breed and its role in the beef industry.”

Bradley began her new role with the AGA on May 15 ▫

American Gelbvieh Foundation Announces The Summit

IGS Youth Leadership Conference Scholarship Recipients

The American Gelbvieh Foundation (AGF) is pleased to announce the recipients of their American Gelbvieh Junior Association (AGJA) The Summit: IGS Youth Leadership Conference Scholarship.

Two individuals were selected to receive the scholarship to assist with travel to The Summit: IGS Youth Leadership Conference. This year’s recipients are Annalee Starr, Stapleton, Nebraska; and Samantha Pecco, Ewing, Kentucky.

Annalee Starr, Stapleton, Nebraska, is the recipient of the $500 AGJA member scholarship. Starr plans to attend the University of Nebraska-Lincoln where she will double major in Agricultural Communications and Animal Science. Starr credits her involvement in the beef industry for engraving the traits of hard work, dedication, perseverance, and the value of a positive attitude, into her life. Starr is excited to attend The Summit this summer to not only grow in leadership but build a community within the industry for her future professional career.

Samantha Pecco, Ewing, Kentucky, is the recipient of the $500 non-AGJA member scholarship. Pecco is a student at Rowan County Senior High School and plans to pursue a career as a veterinarian. She aspires to serve in many leadership roles in the agriculture industry which attending The Summit will allow her to prepare for. She looks forward to growing in her leadership ability and learning more about agricultural advocacy during the conference.

The Summit is an opportunity for juniors to gain industry knowledge and leadership skills that can be used in the future, and is also a place where juniors are able to create new friendships, experience a college campus, and be exposed to current issues affecting the agriculture industry. The Summit will be held July 20 to 23, 2023, in Phoenix, Arizona.

White House Greenlights ESA Revisions — Hot debate to Follow ...

BY MICHAEL DOYLE / E&E NEWS

Long-awaited proposals to revise Endangered Species Act regulations cleared a key White House review in early June, teeing them up for public release and the rekindling of heated debate.

The proposed ESA rules crafted by NOAA Fisheries and the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) cover the designation of critical habitat and the level of protection afforded species listed as threatened, among other issues. First floated in the spring of 2021, the proposals are expected to change rules established by the Trump administration.

John Anderson, executive director of the industry-backed Energy and Wildlife Action Coalition, said in an email that while his “hope would be that the proposed rules would retain much of what was in them” during the Trump administration, he expects unwelcome changes.

“Coupled with other proposed rules and those under consideration by the Department of the Interior … collectively they are making things more challenging to meet the administration’s climate goals by increasing permitting burdens and costs for renewables and electric infrastructure deployment and operations,” Anderson said.

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, part of the White House Office of Management and Budget, cleared the proposed regula-

tions exactly three months after receiving them on March 7 from the FWS.

The FWS and NOAA Fisheries share ESA responsibilities for different species and jointly submitted the proposals to the White House office, which is part of the Office of Management and Budget.

The review included several meetings with interested parties. Records show that the review sessions were requested by the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Energy and Wildlife Action Coalition, the American Bird Conservancy and Safari Club International.

With the new ESA rules, potential changes could involve revisions to exclusions from critical habitat designations. Under the ESA, critical habitat is considered “essential for the conservation of the species.”

The law allows exclusion of areas if “the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat,” unless the exclusion “will result in the extinction of the species concerned.”

The Trump-era regulations cited “other relevant impacts” that may be considered, including public health and safety, community interests and the environment, such as increased risk of wildfire or pest and invasive species management. Some environmentalists worry that this could have been used to justify shrinking critical habitat.

Another potential change involving just the FWS could reinstate presumptive protections for species listed as threatened.

This could mean again automatically extending to threatened species the same protections provided to endangered species, unless the agency adopts a species-specific rule. A third rule changed how the service and NOAA Fisheries work with other agencies to prevent proposed actions that could harm listed species or their critical habitat.

Environmental groups failed last year in an effort to convince a federal judge to vacate the Trump-era rules. That was a legal win for the Biden administration, which in the face of a 2019 lawsuit filed by environmentalists voluntarily agreed to reconsider the regulations, but in the meantime asked that the Trump rules stay in effect.

“It would cause confusion among the public, other agencies, and stakeholders, and impede the efficiency of ESA implementation, by abruptly altering the applicable regulatory framework and creating uncertainty about which standards to apply,” the Justice Department stated in a court filing.

The Biden administration agreed to redo the three rules in response to a lawsuit filed by Earthjustice on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the National Parks Conservation Association, WildEarth Guardians (WEG) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

The proposed rules could be published in the Federal Register within a matter of weeks.

CBD Moves to Intervene in Lesser Prairie Chicken Litigation

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Texas Campaign for the Environment has moved to intervene in a lawsuit to defend the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s (FWS) decision to protect lesser prairie chickens under the Endangered Species Act.

In November the Service announced it would protect the southern distinct population of lesser prairie chicken in Texas and New Mexico as endan-

gered, and the northern distinct population in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado as threatened.

The CBD and Texas Campaign for the Environment filed the motion in response to two lawsuits filed in federal court in Texas by multiple states, ranchers and the oil and gas industry to remove protections for the birds.

The CBD’s predecessor organization, the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, petitioned to pro-

tect the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species in 1995. In 2014, the FWS listed the lesser prairie chicken as threatened. But the following year, the oil and gas industry successfully challenged the listing in Midland, Texas.

The most recent lawsuit filed by the CBD in October 2022 led to a final rule granting protections to the lesser prairie chicken..

Navajos

The New Mexico congressional delegation has reintroduced the ‘‘Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2023’’. This bill will withdraw all federal lands from oil and gas exploration that are within 10 miles of the national park. At the same time the Secretary of Interior is considering her authority to withdraw this same acreage from all oil and gas leasing. (Section 204 of FLPMA allows for withdrawal of 5000 acres or more for a period of up to 20 years).

Concerning his legislation, Senator Martin Heinrich says, “Chaco Canyon is one of the most important living cultural landscapes on the planet. It holds deep meaning for Pueblo people and many New Mexicans.”

Even Gabe Vasquez, our new Congressman for southern New Mexico says, “The Chaco Canyon and the Greater Chaco Region are not just significant landscapes, but they are the footprints of our ancestors and hold deep meaning for many Tribes, Pueblos, and communities in northern New Mexico.”

Senator Heinrich is fond of saying his environmental bills are locally driven, but he doesn’t say that about this one. Could it be that the largest landowner affected by this bill opposes it?

That’s right, the Navajo Nation opposes this 10-mile buffer, which they estimate would encompass 351,000 acres. The Nation had received resolutions from four different Chapters (Pueblo Pintado, Whitehorse Lake, Lake Valley and Nageezi) opposing the land withdrawal

Chaco Canyon and Land Lost to the Feds

and the establishment of any buffer zone. In April of this year they passed a resolution stating the withdrawal “would have a detrimental impact on Navajo allottees by preventing the development of new oil and gas resources on allotments as a result of the allotment being landlocked.” One estimate is they will lose $194 million over the next 20 years.

On Interior’s administrative withdrawal process, the Western Energy Alliance says, “They have failed to hold adequate tribal consultations and listen to the voices of the Navajo Nation in the immediate vicinity of Chaco while giving preference to Sec. Haaland’s and related Puebloan tribes hundreds of miles away.” The alliance also claims that Interior Secretary Haaland has several conflicts of interest including “Sec. Haaland’s daughter works for the Pueblo Action Alliance, an organization that helped coordinate a violent anti-oil-and-gas protest at Interior headquarters and has aggressively lobbied to advance the Chaco withdrawal.”

I should add here that three of Heinrich’s bills were recently passed by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. They are the M.H. Dutch Salmon Greater Gila Wild and Scenic River Act, the Buffalo Tract Protection Act (Sandoval County), and the Cerro de la Olla Wilderness within the Río Grande del Norte National Monument in northern New Mexico.

Language or land

A recent New York Times article by Simon Romero was titled “New Mexico is Losing a Form of Spanish Spoken Nowhere Else on Earth.” The article gives an interesting his-

tory on New Mexican Spanish, or what linguists call Traditional New Mexico Spanish or the Spanish dialect of the Upper Rio Grande Region, and drawing a contrast between it and the more Mexican-influenced Spanish of southern New Mexico.

Concerning the future for those speaking this type Spanish, the author then veers off saying “economic forces” have “fueled an exodus” from the “aging northern villages.” He also sights other threats, such as the largest wildfire in the state’s history and issues associated with “climate change.”

What never seems to be told is, one of the “economic forces” that has “fueled an exodus” is the federal government itself.

The feds have taken away their land and water, and disrupted centuries of tradition.

It is not just their language that is being lost. Through federal ownership or control of the land and water, the entire history and culture of this area is on the chopping block. Communities have been crippled, families torn asunder, and small businesses destroyed. It is a shameful blight upon the federal enterprise.

Until next time, be a nuisance to the devil and don’t forget to check that cinch.

Frank DuBois was the NM Secretary of Agriculture from 1988 to 2003, is the author of a blog: The Westerner (www. thewesterner.blogspot.com) and is the founder of The DuBois Rodeo Scholarship and The DuBois Western Heritage Foundation from 1988 to 2003, is the author of a blog: The Westerner (www.thewesterner. blogspot.com) and is the founder of The DuBois Rodeo Scholarship and The DuBois Western Heritage Foundation      ▫

The Big Reason Why

Rules for Vehicle Emissions

BY CAMILA DOMONOSKE / NPR

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing its most ambitious new regulations yet for cutting pollution from vehicles.

Visit https://www.epa.gov/ regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule-multi-pollutant-emissions-standards-model to see the proposed rule and how to comment.

The comment period for this proposal closes on July 5, 2023. Three organizations requested that EPA extend the public comment period for the proposed rule. EPA sent letters explaining our denial of these requests to each of these organizations.

The overarching goal is not just cleaner cars, but the transformation of the auto industry: The EPA would essentially impose regulatory penalties on companies that do not move quickly enough toward electric cars.

The new standards are so strict that, according to the EPA’s estimates, up to 67 percent of new vehicles sold in 2032 may have to be electric in order for carmakers to be in compliance.

EPA Administrator Michael Regan says the proposed standards would eliminate 7.3 billion tons of CO2, equivalent to four years’ worth of the entire U.S. transportation sector, and save lives through reduced air pollution.

He promised the EPA will work closely with labor, the auto industry and green groups to “usher in a new generation” of clean cars.

“We’re going to envision and innovate and achieve this future together,” he said during a call with reporters. “It is well within our grasp. Make no mistake about it.”

Margo Oge, a former EPA official and the chair of the board of the International Council on Clean Transportation, called the regulations “the single most important regulatory initiative by the Biden administration ... to really reduce the worst impacts of climate change.”

“The administration is going to make history — if indeed, at the end of the day, they finalize these ambitious standards,” she said in a press conference arranged by the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group.

Before they are finalized, the proposed standards (which include several alternative options) are open for public comment. They may be revised before they enter into effect. EPA has also proposed new standards for medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks.

Here’s what to know about the proposal.

What do the standards require?

These proposed standards cover the pollution from vehicle tailpipes — including air pollution that is directly damaging to human health, as well as the greenhouse gases that are fueling catastrophic climate change. They are separate from the

fuel economy standards set by the federal government; new proposals for those rules are expected soon. These are also separate from — and designed differently than — the zero-emission vehicle mandates adopted in California and some other states.

The EPA is not proposing to directly require that 67 percent of vehicles be zero-emission by 2032.

Instead, it sets a standard for emissions, on average, based on the size and type of vehicle being built. The agency says those new rules are so stringent that it believes companies will need to produce 67 percent zero-emission vehicles to meet them.

But technically, if automakers came up with another way to meet the rules, they could; the policy is “technology-neutral.”

The new proposed standards would require just 82 grams/ mile, on average across a company’s production, by model year 2032. That’s a 56 percent reduction from the 2026 target.

Exactly one automaker could meet that standard today: Tesla.

Isn’t the auto industry already going electric?

Yes, automakers are already executing a remarkable shift toward electric vehicles, spending hundreds of billions of dollars on new battery plants and production lines.

And the plans companies had already announced were fairly eye-popping.

Ford — which sold 61,575 EVs last year — aims to build 600,000 per year by the end of 2023.

General Motors plans to build a million per year by 2025, an aggressive move from the 39,096 EVs it sold last year.

These are all numbers for the North American market, not counting the huge Chinese EV market.

However, companies have different timelines for when they planned to go electric, and many were not publicly planning on being anywhere close to two-thirds electric in the U.S. by 2032.

A number of automakers had balked at President Biden’s previously announced target of having 50 percent of new cars sold by 2030 be made up of EVs. The EPA proposal is more ambitious — and, unlike that target, it would come with regulatory teeth if it was adopted.

In addition to new rules for cars, trucks and SUVs, the EPA is also proposing standards for medium-duty vehicles, like delivery trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles, like tractor-trailers. If finalized, the EPA predicts these would lead to 50 percent of buses and 25 percent of long-haul tractor trailers being electric by 2032.

How will this affect car shoppers?

Some analysts and industry voices are crying foul, saying the EPA is moving unreasonably quickly and would hurt consumers.

The EPA estimates that complying with the proposed rules would add $633 to the cost of making a vehicle in 2027 and about $1,200 per vehicle in 2032.

But drivers would overall save money because EVs are cheaper to operate, the EPA’s analysis found. Car buyers may also benefit from tax credits of up to $7,500.

Overall, the EPA calculates the rules would save the U.S. between $850 billion and $1.6 trillion, including reduced climate change impacts and improvements to health.

Are these rules feasible to implement?

The EPA maintains the rules can be feasibly met, thanks to improving technology and to significant government support for electric vehicles — including loans, grants and tax credits for companies building batteries and electric vehicles, as well as tax credits for consumers buying them.

And it’s certainly true the Biden administration offered many carrots to persuade the auto industry to go electric, in addition to this regulatory stick.

But the auto industry emphasizes that the shift toward electric vehicles requires multiple, simultaneous transformations, including some outside their control.

It’s not currently clear if the

world can mine enough minerals or build enough batteries quickly enough to satisfy automakers’ existing production plans, let alone accelerated ones.

Charging infrastructure needs to be built out, as well as the power generation to supply those chargers. Drivers — huge swathes of them, not just a small percentage of enthusiasts or the particularly eco-conscious — would need to embrace a shift away from gas stations and towards chargers.

What’s next?

The proposed regulations will be open for comment, and car makers will likely be very vocal about expressing what they consider they can actually achieve over the next decade.

The proposed rules are also very likely to face a backlash. Republican states, led by Texas, have already sued the EPA over the current version of these vehicle standards, arguing that the body overstepped its authority in crafting those rules with an eye to EV adoption.

And those standards are significantly less ambitious than the rules proposed today.

Notably, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the trade group for major automakers, has defended the EPA’s right to set those standards, saying nobody questions the future is electric.

“However this litigation concludes,” the group said in a legal filing, “widespread vehicle electrification is inevitable.”.. ▫

What Is The Best Advertising

AgriCapture Receives First Carbon Credits in Texas History for Grasslands Conservation A

griCapture is issued the first-ever avoided grasslands conversion carbon credits in Texas through a partnership with the property’s landowner and the Texas Agricultural Land Trust to protect soil carbon and ensure that the property’s native grasslands will not be converted. The credits were issued by the Climate Action Reserve (CAR), a globally trusted carbon market offset registry, to a Bailey County ranch. Located in the High Plains of the Texas Panhandle, the area is recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a New Dust Bowl Zone, where preserving native grassland habitats and preventing land use conversion is especially critical.

Based in Nashville, AgriCapture was created by a group of agriculture specialists, environmentalists, and economists to combat climate change through sustainable agriculture. AgriCapture verifies Climate-Friendly agricultural practices on farms, ranches, and grasslands to track environmental benefits and boost profitability for agricultural partners across the country.

Despite constant threat of development and conversion to cropland, native grasslands provide critically important wildlife habitat, filter water flowing into aquifers, rivers, and lakes, and naturally sequester over a third of land-based carbon.

Grasslands conservation carbon credits incentivize landowners to protect underground carbon storage within their grasslands. Corporate supporters of the Avoided Grasslands Conversion Project will offset company GHG emissions while preserving disappearing native

the U.S. is Seeking the Toughest-Ever