From THE DAILY CALLER

Audrey Streb
Contributor

Officials are reportedly reassessing the risk posed by Chinese-made devices found in solar panels that are capable of damaging the energy infrastructure, destabilizing the power grid and triggering widespread blackouts.

Over the past nine months, “rogue communication devices” not listed in product documents were found in solar power inverters and batteries from several Chinese suppliers, according to sources familiar with the matter who spoke with Reuters. The undocumented devices were found after U.S. experts disassembled the renewable energy equipment to check for security issues, prompting officials to review the potential dangers of the Chinese-made devices, according to the publication. (RELATED: NYT Columnist Gushes Over China’s ‘Green Transition’ Without Once Mentioning It’s Fueled By Slave Labor)

“We know that China believes there is value in placing at least some elements of our core infrastructure at risk of destruction or disruption,” Mike Rogers, a former director of the U.S. National Security Agency, told Reuters. “I think that the Chinese are, in part, hoping that the widespread use of inverters limits the options that the West has to deal with the security issue.

The communication devices were reportedly found in power inverters, which are used to connect solar panels and wind turbines to the power grid and are often produced in China. They are also found in electric vehicle chargers, batteries and heat pumps. Undocumented cellular radios were also found in Chinese-manufactured batteries, according to the publication.

If the rogue communication devices found in the inverters are used to circumnavigate firewalls and change the settings or turn off inverters remotely, this could destabilize power grids, damage energy technology and prompt blackouts, according to experts who spoke with Reuters.

“That effectively means there is a built-in way to physically destroy the grid,” one of the sources told the publication.

For years, energy and security experts have cautioned that reliance on Chinese products for green energy could expose the U.S. to espionage and security risks. (RELATED: Chinese Hackers Have Been Feasting On Key US Infrastructure On Biden’s Watch)

A spokesperson for the Department of Energy (DOE) told Reuters that it continually evaluates risks involving new technology and that “while this functionality may not have malicious intent, it is critical for those procuring to have a full understanding of the capabilities of the products received.”

“As more domestic manufacturing takes hold, DOE is working across the federal government to strengthen U.S. supply chains, providing additional opportunities to integrate trusted equipment into the power grid,” the spokesperson continued, noting that the department is working to address any missing disclosure information through “Software Bill of Materials” or inventories of all the parts that make up a software application, in addition to other contract requirements.

“We oppose the generalisation [sic] of the concept of national security, distorting and smearing China’s infrastructure achievements,” a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington told Reuters.

Republican officials sent a letter advising an American energy company to stop using Chinese-manufactured batteries due to the security risks in December 2023, according to a February 2024 statement.

“We approached Duke Energy regarding its use of Chinese-manufactured CATL batteries and network-equipped systems, which posed an unacceptable surveillance risk at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina — the largest Marine Base in the United States. Directly following our inquiry, Duke disconnected the Chinese-manufactured systems from the grid,” former Republican Wisconsin Rep. Mike Gallagher and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a U.S. senator for the state of Florida at the time, wrote in the press release. “Others that continue to work with CATL, and other companies under the control of the CCP, should take note,” they continued.

DOE, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Security Agency, the White House and the Chinese embassy did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for confirmation or comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

By Jo Nova

They really do want to turn men into women

The men are the climate vandals who carelessly wreck the Earth.  If they would just eat the tofu and drive less, the world would be a better place, eh, especially for bourgeois academic femmebots in London. This is the kind of junk research that Big Government funding feeds. Someone spent a lot of money, and nobody learnt a thing.

Naturally, the Guardian lapped it right up:

Cars and meat are major factors driving a gender gap in greenhouse gas emissions, new research suggests.

Men emit 26% more planet-heating pollution than women from transport and food, according to a preprint study of 15,000 people in France. The gap shrinks to 18% after controlling for socioeconomic factors such as income and education.

But really the 26%-more-planet-polluting-men shrinks to a third once you account for men being, you know, bigger and more likely to travel further.

Eating red meat and driving cars explain almost all of the 6.5-9.5% difference in pollution that remains after also accounting for men eating more calories and travelling longer distances, the researchers said. They found no gender gap from flying.

The enemy of course, is “traditional gender norms”. Real men cause storms and floods. Toxic masculinity is raising Earths Temperature:

Our results suggest that traditional gender norms, particularly those linking masculinity with red meat consumption and car use, play a significant role in shaping individual carbon footprints,” said Ondine Berland, an economist at the London School of Economics and Political Science and a co-author of the study.

From the paper, these genius economists think red meat consumption is just a male identity thing:

“Red meat and car — high-emission goods often associated with male identity — account for most of the residual, highlighting the role of gender differences in preferences in shaping disparities in carbon footprints.”

Where are words like body-fat, muscle percentage, basal metabolic rate, and bone mass?

They’re not in this paper. The average man has 50% more muscle mass than the average woman (around 36kg compared to 23kg). He has 13 or 14 kilograms of bone, and she only has nine. All up, he has 15 to 20 kilograms of extra structural mass that needs constant repair and rebuilding. Is he supposed to turn into a girl to save the planet?

Women have a higher percentage of body fat which is metabolically comatose most of the day and also insulates them more from heat loss. Even at rest, skeletal muscle burns about three times as much energy as our fat does. A body with more muscle will need more energy and more protein.

So the researchers big concession to men was to study carbon footprints and even (sometimes) control for “calories”. Seriously? The hottest statistic in the abstract (and repeated in the press release) was that women emit 26% (!) less carbon than men in food and transport, but they admit this does not include “biological differences”.  They think there was something meaningful about a food statistic which treats men and women like they are supposed to be the same? Any five year old at the family dinner table knows this is stupid.

It turns out the London School of Economics is also the London preschool of biology.

All around the world men eat more meat than women — it’s not a cultural thing, it’s a human thing.

One study of 20,000 people from 23 nations found that men ate more meat than women nearly everywhere. And when men and women had more freedom and wealth to choose whatever they wanted, the gender gaps grew even larger. In poor countries, presumably, the men would like to eat more meat but can’t afford to. Does anyone care about those men?

Men are also more likely to be injured in sport and at work, they take more risks, and their metabolic rate is higher. More to the point, they evolved to deal with risks and injuries, so it’s hardwired — the meat-eating men conquered the vegans and recovered faster after the battle.

The Guardian continues the cultural warfare, just so you know, the horrible types who use “soy boy” include JD Vance and a misogynist…

The term “soy boy” has been used by far-right figures including the US vice-president, JD Vance, and the self-described misogynist influencer Andrew Tate to present progressive men as weak.

And just to twist the manipulative knife — the researchers say women find it easier to be climate goodie goodies, while men are the selfish climate deniers, because they don’t want to give up their red meat to save the planet.

The French researchers suggested the gender differences in emissions could explain why women tend to be more concerned about the climate crisis, arguing the greater personal cost of reducing their emissions could cause men to avoid grappling with the reality of the climate emergency.

I say teenage girls are easily fooled and grown men are braver at standing up to ostracism and petty names.

The transport statistics are almost as silly as the food ones.  The biggest gender gap in male and female driving habits was not when men and women were single, but when they lived together and had children. When couples had kids, he drove more than his wife did. She was pushing a pram around while he went to work. That’s your big “gender gap”. A women with little kids is not driving less because she cares about climate change.

 

The truth is this whole work of cognitive vandalism was probably aimed at manipulating young women, not men. (Think of the saccharine flattery). The Blob might want to wind up those pretentious 20-somethings who’ll then rank the climate soy-boy above the strong man in the all important dating game. This leverages the pressure on men to play by the globalist rules. Real men probably don’t read the Guardian, but if they have to, they’ll ride a bike and eat fish to get laid.

REFERENCE

Ondine Berland, and Marion LeRoutier (2025) The gender gap in carbon footprints: determinants and implications, London School of Economics, Working paper 424, May 14, 2025

Image by Ivana Tomášková from Pixabay

 

 

From the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

The first 100+ days of the second Trump administration (it’s now actually 113 days) have seen a near total abandonment of the fantasy that this one country’s government can change the weather and “save the planet” by suppressing use of hydrocarbon fuels and impoverishing the people. Biden administration “climate” and energy policies amounting to thousands of pages in regulations and hundreds of billions of dollars in grants and subsidies to uneconomic energy projects have been swiftly reversed. Examples in just the past few weeks include:

And these are just examples. There are many more.

At this point, you would think that the blue states might take the hint. As a blue state, you had thought that you were embarking on an energy “transition” with the full backing and support of the federal government, complete with its vast powers and its infinite checkbook. Sure, this was going to cost trillions of dollars; but it was almost all their money, not yours. If somehow it all didn’t work out, you were not going to be the main one on the hook. Now, all that has changed. In the blink of an eye, there is no more support to be had from the infinite deep pocket. Not only is the federal government no longer your partner and financial sugar daddy, but it is even taking steps to obstruct and hinder your efforts.

So going forward, is there any point? As a lone blue state, you don’t remotely have the resources to expunge fossil fuels from your energy system on your own. Maybe, would it be best just to lie low for a few years and wait for the next friendly administration in Washington?

Well, if you are New York, that is not how you react. Your religious fervor is such that you are now prepared proceed totally on your own to defy the laws of physics and thermodynamics. Even as the federal government is telling New York to take a hike, here are some of the latest antics on the climate front from New York officials and climate activists:

• The State’s 2025-26 budget just got enacted on Friday, May 9. ESG Today reported excitedly on Monday (May 12) that the budget includes “over $1 billion investment in decarbonization.” Excerpt:New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the state’s 2025-2026 budget on Friday, which included more than $1 billion in climate change-focused investments, including funding to lower emissions from buildings and accelerate the rollout of electrified transportation. . . . Key climate-focused allocations in the new budget include $450 million targeting reductions in building emissions, including investments in energy-efficient retrofits and clean heating technologies like heat pumps, more than $200 million for thermal energy networks, $250 million to support electric school buses, fast-charging stations and a NYSERDA rebate program for installing EV charging stations, as well as $200 million for renewable energy expansion and grid modernization. Nobody is impolite enough here to mention that $1 billion is chump change in the effort to get rid of hydrocarbon fuels. If you were serious about the effort, the number would be more like $1 trillion. But don’t worry, nobody reading this stuff has sufficient numeric competency to understand that.
• New York City Comptroller Brad Lander — who is also a candidate for Mayor in the current election cycle — fancies himself a leader in the climate movement. Lander put out a statement on April 22 (“Earth Day”) setting forth his position:New York City Comptroller Brad Lander decried threats from the Trump administration to dramatically roll back climate progress and stood with climate activists from New York Communities for Change, 350 NYC, and Fridays for Future to announce new actions by the Comptroller’s Office to reduce New York City’s emissions. . . . [T]o stand strong against federal rollbacks, Comptroller Lander is demanding more from the asset managers who manage funds for the New York City Employees Retirement System (NYCERS), Teachers Retirement System (TRS), and Board of Education Retirement System (BERS).
• In a prior statement on March 26, reported in Net Zero Investor, Lander vowed that the City “will not retreat one inch” on its climate program, despite the actions of the Trump administration.
• Our local environmental activist groups brook no dissent from climate orthodoxy. On March 31, a group of four climate activist organizations sued the State government in an effort to force faster progress on greenhouse gas reduction goals. From New York Focus, March 31:Four environmental and climate justice groups filed a lawsuit Monday in a state court, claiming that New York is “stonewalling necessary climate action in outright violation” of its legal obligations. By not releasing economy-wide emissions rules, the suit alleges, the state Department of Environmental Conservation, or dec, is “defying the Legislature’s clear directive” and “prolonging New Yorkers’ exposure to air pollution … especially in disadvantaged communities.” It’s the first lawsuit to charge the state with failing to enforce the core mandate of its 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or clcpa: eliminating nearly all of New York’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

So, there is plenty of bluster from local politicians and activists. But despite that, I can’t find a word as to how they plan to meet the greenhouse gas reduction and green energy mandates of the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, now that all federal backing is withdrawn. As just one element, there was supposed to be 9000 MW of offshore wind built to replace on-shore fossil fuel power plants. Now the Trump administration is obstructing the offshore wind development. I haven’t been able to find a word from New York elected or energy officials on how they plan to transitions the energy supply if they can’t build the offshore wind facilities.

So we move forward with our officials in a state of bluff and bluster and denial, and no plan of any kind to meet the impossible mandates of the Climate Act. We all know that this is doomed to failure, but it will likely be a couple of years before we see the failure unfold.