Touching on a subject I mentioned yesterday Marc Morano does not back-of-the-envelope calculating at the New York Post:

But how many pizzas would you have to order to equal just one trip on John Kerry’s private jet?

In 2021, Kerry’s private jet emitted an estimated 116 metric tons of carbon in less than a year.

Private jets emit up to 40 times as much CO2 per passenger as commercial flights.

By comparison, the carbon footprint of a wood-burning stove (a reasonable facsimile of a pizza oven) is barely measurable. The 8 Billion Trees project estimates that the “carbon footprint of wood-burning stoves” can be up to 15.6 grams an hour or 374 grams a day. This is measured in grams, not metric tons.

You would have to burn that stove for 310,160 days — that is, 849 years — to equal what hypocrite Kerry puts out in a year.

But wait, it gets better!

Physicist Dr. Will Happer, emeritus of Princeton University and the chair of the CO2 Coalition, told the New York Post that restrictions on wood- or coal-fired pizza ovens may increase the carbon footprint of pizza in New York City.

“To the extent that the wood-fired ovens are replaced by electrically heated ovens, which I suppose is what is intended, CO2 emissions will probably increase,” Happer said.

“Even for New York City, most of the electrical power probably comes from burning gas or coal. For a gas-fired pizza oven, all the heat of combustion is used to bake the pizza. For an electrically heated oven, you have to convert electrical power back to heat.

“It is hard to see how emissions could decrease if people want to continue eating the same amount of pizza,” he added.

The figures I’ve seen suggest that fewer than 100 locations would be affected by the new regulations.

Doing a little back-of-the-envelope calculating of my own if the relative number of private to commercial flights holds true (it’s about 1:10) 300 private jets land in New York City airports daily. Why not ban those aircraft from landing? Wouldn’t that accomplish more than trying to regulate wood-burning pizza ovens out of existence?

That leads to the question what are they actually trying to accomplish? Clearly, based on the foregoing it isn’t reducing carbon emissions.

As my brief shopping excursion this morning confirmed to me, Chicago has the worst air quality in the world. Vivian La, Jenna Smith and Deanese Williams-Harris report in the Chicago Tribune:

Thick smoke from Canadian wildfires coated Chicago and the surrounding areas with haze as weather officials issued an air quality alert for parts of the Great Lakes, Lower Mississippi and Ohio valleys Tuesday morning.

According to the monitoring site IQAir, Chicago had the worst air quality out of 95 cities worldwide Tuesday.

As of 11 a.m., the air quality index had risen to a level considered “very unhealthy,” according to AirNow, a website that combines data from county, state and federal air quality agencies nationwide. This means everyone is at risk of experiencing health effects.

Smelling smoke is an immediate sign to stay indoors, said Zac Adelman, executive director of the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium.

Whatever the role of anthropogenic climate change in the Canadian wildfires, I wonder when people will figure out that no steps that Canada takes other than changing how they manage wildfires and forests will mitigate the risk wildfires in terms of polluting the air?

The haze you’re seeing isn’t carbon dioxide, of course. It’s particulates. The best way of dealing with them is to prevent them from getting into the air in the first place. Converting from coal-fired steam engines to diesel engines had a major impact in reducing the amount of particulates in the air during the 20th century.

I was also amused this morning to see that New York City is cracking down on wood-fired ovens, much to the consternation of pizza lovers. Wood-fired ovens and furnaces are actually increasing in number. They are presumed to be carbon neutral which I would guess is true in the long run but you know what Lord Keynes said about the long term.

While I agree with Nick Tiller’s skepticism about the new weight loss drugs coming along in his piece at Skeptical Inquirer:

Semaglutide is a breakthrough in the noninvasive treatment of obesity. First made available in 2017 under the brand name Ozempic for treating type II diabetes, it was re-approved by the FDA in 2021, with a distinct dosing regimen, under the brand name Wegovy as a therapeutic aid for obesity. Both drugs mimic glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1)—a hormone secreted during digestion to suppress appetite. More specifically, by acting through the central and peripheral nervous system, semaglutide slows the rate at which food empties from the stomach, increases insulin release from the pancreas (for better blood glucose control), and alters the perception of taste (thereby causing “taste aversion”). The drug can effectively restore the GLP-1 signaling pathway, which is thought to be dysfunctional in certain obese patients. As with all medications, Ozempic and Wegovy come with side effects. Nausea, abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, and vomiting are all common. But for clinically obese patients or diabetics, who have a considerably greater risk of cardiometabolic disease, the risk-to-benefit ratio is generally thought to be favorable.

But not for everyone. Experts broadly categorize obesity into one-of-four subtypes: people who need to eat more food than normal to become full (referred to as “hungry brain”); people who become full with a regular meal but with short-lived effects (“hungry gut”); people who eat to cope with difficult emotions (“emotional hunger”); and people with a relatively slow metabolism (“slow burn”). Semaglutide, as a GLP-1 analog, is an effective intervention for those with “hungry gut,” but it may not be appropriate for people with obesity classified as “slow burn” or “emotional hunger.” Chronic depression and anxiety are two of the most common psychopathologies that trigger binge eating, and many people eat to transiently improve their mood. These behaviors won’t simply subside along with one’s appetite. In such cases, semaglutide may bury the symptoms, leaving the causes to root.

For all its clinical efficacy, semaglutide doesn’t show people how to change their relationship with food or eat in a healthy, sustainable way. Studies show that people who stopped the therapy after twenty weeks regained most of the weight they’d initially lost because the appetite suppressant reduces diet quantity without improving quality. What’s more, “yo-yo dieting”—large and periodic fluctuations in body weight—poses a considerable risk of cardiovascular disease and life dissatisfaction. For optimal outcomes, semaglutide must be taken alongside the dietary and lifestyle changes that obese patients have historically been unable to do implement. Where they have previously failed, semaglutide may provide the conditions to succeed.

I still don’t think he gets to the biggest problem. Maybe my understanding is flawed but as I understand it these drugs function by reducing the appetite. They don’t make you eat the things you need to eat to sustain life and health. Unless there’s a lot more to your regimen that taking these drugs, won’t you gravitate to eating what you like rather than what you need?

I won’t be at all surprised if we start seeing a rash of cases of scurvy, pellagra, rickets, osteoporosis, etc. in rich countries.

At Portugal News Robert Cavaleiro reports something of which I was unaware:

n 1993 the Clinton administration signed an accord with the Russian Federation for a continuous supply of enriched uranium to fuel U.S. reactors. Astonishingly, this trade has never ended. In the last year, U.S. nuclear energy companies are estimated to have paid to Rosatom (the enormous Russian marketing monopoly) around USD one billion for material which could have been produced in its own planned centrifugal plants; of these only one, in Ohio, is anywhere near completion. In Europe, Germany and France gladly bought Russian over-production to the tune of €450 million during 2022 while four other EU states – Bulgaria, Finland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic – operate a total of fifteen Russian made nuclear reactors but have not contracted a separate, authorized alternative to this source of fuel. It brings little profit in itself to Rosatom which relies on the sale of hardware and Russian technical expertise to pile up the roubles.

‘Splain me, Lucy. That’s the sort of thing that makes me wonder if we’re serious.

Reading the tea leaves on what is going on in Russia is pretty hard right about now. I materially agree with George Friedman’s interpretation of events:

What we must think through now, though, is to what extent the Prigozhin debacle will destabilize the Russian government, weaken Putin or affect the war in Ukraine. Putin’s status is at the center of it all. If this was indeed a coup attempt, it never seriously threatened the Kremlin. Prigozhin’s issues with elements of the central government were well known. Why, then, would Putin be weakened by a putsch from a known malcontent that went nowhere? And what does being weakened even mean? Does it mean that department heads, and particularly the General Staff, would disregard his orders? Does it mean he no longer has a job?

In a political sense, weakened might mean that Putin would no longer be able to make executive decisions or eliminate bureaucrats and generals. This would be a serious development. Russia is at war, and it needs an effective command structure. If Putin were weakened, then the command structure would break down, which would also mean there would be no supreme commander. In that scenario, it is unlikely Putin would be weakened; he would be replaced. The question is who would replace him? Prigozhin might have been angling for the job, but he ultimately capitulated to a different Putin puppet, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. Someone unknown to me might emerge, of course, but short of an heir apparent I don’t know what it means for Putin to be weakened. And even if I did, I don’t know why a coup attempt broken in less than a day should weaken him.

The more serious question concerns what the Wagner Group was doing on the battlefield in the first place. Private military contracting is common enough, but Wagner’s role in Russia was fairly unique in that it took on responsibilities usually reserved more for conventional forces than for paramilitary groups, charged as it was with executing some of the war’s most important battles. As its role evolved, Prigozhin began to pursue his own strategy outside the chain of command of the military, sometimes openly ridiculing his rivals, who would cut off his supplies in kind. Two armies thus tried – and have so far failed – to fight a common enemy.

He goes on to point out that the real problem that Putin has is that enabled the Wagner Group in the first place with which I agree completely.

Meanwhile at Asia Times James Davis remarks on something I have been pointing out for some time:

The Wagner Group mutiny over this weekend elicited a storm of editorial and social media comments to the effect that the Russian president might be deposed after all. After Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin took the deal proposed by Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko, called off his march on Moscow and decamped to Moscow’s closest ally, Putin was still in place.

But the political sands have shifted toward Russia’s ultra-nationalist right, raising grave strategic risks including a higher probability of the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

Russia has been shifting towards a nasty form of nationalism since Maidan, which Nuland and her colleagues saw as a prelude to the overthrow of Putin. The American-sponsored coup against the elected president Viktor Yanukovych threatened Russia’s tenure in Crimea, home of its Black Sea fleet, and prompted Russia’s annexation of the peninsula, which has been Russian territory since the rule of Catherine the Great.

Prigozhin reflects a growing consensus in the Russian armed forces and important parts of civil society that Putin has been a weakling in the face of Western designs against Russia. This consensus includes Chechen warlord Ramzan Kadyrov, who Putin prevailed upon to send troops to defend Moscow against Prigozhin’s mutinous march on the capital. Kadyrov and Prigozhin have been allies against Putin’s military leadership, demanding more aggressive and decisive action in Ukraine from a perceived as cautious Kremlin.

There is no liberal opposition to speak of in Russia. That is a fantasy. Regime change in Russia is the very last thing we should want—it would mean a much more truculent and Russian nationalist posture for them.

All of that is contrary to the party line being promoted by the Biden Administration. Is what they’re saying based on some intelligence they’re not sharing with us, political happy talk, or wishful thinking?

Speaking of weird, the situation with respect to Hunter Biden is pretty weird as well. The one thing we can conclude reasonably is that federal officials are lying to us. How do we know that? Because the story being told by the IRS and that being told by the Department of Justice are diametrically opposed. I see no way both can be true.

Jonathan Turley looks at the situation at The Hill:

IRS supervisory agent Gary A. Shapley Jr. told Congress he was so dismayed by Weiss’s statement and other admissions that he memorialized them in a communication to other team members.

Shapley and another whistleblower detail what they describe as a pattern of interference with their investigation of Hunter Biden, including the denial of searches, lines of questioning, and even attempted indictments.

The only thing abundantly clear is that someone is lying. Either these whistleblowers are lying to Congress, or these Justice Department officials (including Garland) are lying.

Maybe you see some way of reconciling those statements. I don’t think that simply dismissing Mr. Turley is a sufficient response.

I don’t know what’s true other than that it looks very much as though federal officials are lying to us.

Just when you thought that the situation in Russia couldn’t get any weirder it surprises you. The latest development is that Prigozhin and his Wagner Group detachment are no longer on the road to Moscow but seem to be heading for Belarus. That’s about as much as we actually know.

There’s some speculation that Prigozhin has reached some sort of agreement with the Russian Ministry of Defense and/or the Kremlin but at this point that appears to be speculation. For that to be the case you’ve got to assume that a lot of the activity of the last several days has been theatrics. What do I mean by that? Prigozhin’s speech alleging that the MoD had attacked his men; Putin’s speech castigating Prigozhin as a traitor.

The official U. S. position appears to be that these events indicate how weak and disorganized Russia is. Maybe. We should know more in the next several days.

There’s something going on in Russia but for the life of me I can’t figure out what.

first, the head man of the Wagner Group mercenaries, Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin, made a speech complaining about the Russian Ministry of Defense’s handling of the war in Ukraine. In the Western press some are saying he denounced Putin but if you actually listen to the speech he didn’t mention Putin by name. Then the Wagner mercenaries marched into Roslov, a town in southern Russia, and basically took it over without firing a shot.

Then today Putin addressed the country, denouncing Prigozhin.

There have been various characterizations of the events as an attempted coup, a psyop, or a psychotic break. I don’t actually know what’s going on.

Overthrowing Putin might well bring an end to the war in Ukraine just not in the way that those calling for that in the West might want. Most of the Russian language complaints about the war I’ve come across have been complaints that they’re being too soft on the Ukrainians not that Russia should withdraw from Ukraine.

Perhaps the best comment on what’s going on was made by Niccolo Macchiavelli 500 years ago who warned about relying on mercenaries. Mercenary captains always have ambitions of their own.

Update

Joe Gandelman has a round-up of reactions to the Western media’s general ignoring of the situation:

The biggest international story of the day (the year?) broke on June 23, 2023 when Russia’s Wagner mercinary chief Wagner mercenary chief Yevgeniy Prigozhin said Russia’s war in Ukraine was based on lies and declared war on the Russian leadership, saying Wagner forces would destroy it. Russia ordered Prigozhin’s arrests on mutiny charges, while the Wagner group reportedly began advancing on cities.

The biggest cable news networks carried the story but remained focused on a parade of interviews on the tragic implosion of the Titan submerisble, which killed five people including the company’s CEO.

There used to be a saying in the days when print media was dominant: If it bleeds, it leads. Cable news seemingly has a saying: If it implodes, viewership explodes.

It wasn’t that cable was totally ignoring the story. But cable seemed unable to rearrange its priorities in the initial hours that the story broke to give it the priority it deserved.

Perhaps a referesher course in Journalism 101 might help. But cable’s Russian coup-attempt coverage was a reminder that many years ago broadcast news ceased being a cherished stewardship and became big bucks entertainment business.

Motivated, no doubt, by the ongoing state visit of Indian Prime Minister Modi with President Biden there are a number of opinion pieces on our relations with India. Indian ex-pat Fareed Zakaria uses his Washington Post column to urge a “people to people” relationship. He seems to have a realistic appraisal of the situation:

Modi is extremely popular in India and, what’s more, his Hindu nationalism is also popular. Like Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel and Viktor Orban in Hungary, Modi has tapped into an illiberal vein in India that scorns minorities, checks and balances, and liberal constitutionalism. In all these places, the nationalist-populist leader sets himself and his many followers against the old, secular, cosmopolitan elite that has ruled the country for decades. Truth be told, there is often much frustration with that elite, an establishment that seems disconnected from the heartland of the nation, from ordinary people and their ideas and emotions.

No wonder he urges a “people to people” relationship between the two countries:

Far better to ally with India’s society itself, expanding ties with its businesses, press, nongovernmental organizations, cultural groups and others. India is one of the most pro-American countries in the world, something that is palpable when you are there. Companies, students, scholars, activists — all want closer ties with the United States.

Unfortunately, he never tries to reconcile those two very different points-of-view. How can both Modi and the U. S. be popular? IMO the answer is to be found in the fact that about 3% of India’s GDP, a vast amount, comes from overseas remittances from Gulf states and the United States.

Sadanand Dhume’s Wall Street Journal column takes a somewhat different tack:

In the long term, India’s value as a counterweight to China depends on its getting a handle on economic underperformance and domestic unrest.

During Mr. Modi’s tenure, the economic gap between China and India has continued to widen. As recently as 1990, the two countries were roughly on par in per capita income. By 2014, the year Mr. Modi took office, China’s per capita income was 4.9 times India’s. According to the World Bank, by 2021 the average Chinese earned 5.6 times as much as the average Indian—around $12,550 compared with $2,250. India doesn’t need to match the Chinese economy to challenge Beijing along the two countries’ Himalayan frontier. But if the economic and technological gap continues to grow, prolonged confrontation may become unsustainable, diminishing New Delhi’s main value to Washington.

India’s ability to play a larger role on the world stage also depends on its ability to control domestic strife. Nine years after he became prime minister, Mr. Modi retains powerful appeal in the most populous parts of India. A Morning Consult poll regularly shows Mr. Modi as having the highest domestic popularity of the 22 global leaders it tracks. But the BJP’s strident Hindu nationalism has little appeal to the 1 in 5 Indians who follow other faiths. In recent years unrest has flared in Muslim-majority Kashmir, Sikh-majority Punjab and the northeastern state of Manipur, home to a large Christian minority.

concluding:

India is an important country, and the Biden administration is right to pursue closer ties. But unless Mr. Modi can find a way to close the gap with China and embrace all Indians equally, the durability of America’s bet on India will remain in question.

My own view is that the relationship between China and India is inherently if not adversarial at least competitive. We don’t need to foster that or harness it. It will be a reality whatever we do.

I think we should look at India much as we do Israel and for the same reasons. There are presently about 4 million Indians in the U. S. There are about 8 million Jews. Just as our Jewish fellow Americans are interested in Israel so are our Indian fellow Americans interested in India. American, Israeli, and Indian interests are not identical but they are congruent at times, in discord at others. Both Israel and India are becoming more nationalistic and less liberal. There is little that we can do about either of those developments. To me that means we should make common cause with both of them when we can but recognize that will not always be in our best interests.