Trump's Energy Plans Look to Roll Back Obama's Climate Moves

November 21, 2016

Fox News - Trump’s campaign promises of reviving the coal industry helped him win over voters in places like Wyoming, West Virginia and other states hard hit by declining production of the energy source. Now as he readies to enter the White House, many of the voters are looking to see when – and, maybe more importantly, how – the incoming president will fulfill that promise.

Coal production has been on the wane for a number of years and the industry struggles to cope with tighter environmental regulations imposed by the Obama administration.

Saving the coal industry is part of Trump’s 100-day action plan and, although he has not given any specifics so far, his campaign trail promises included rescinding the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule.

President Obama’s eight-year effort to rein in the energy and mining industries with environmental regulations will likely come to a halt under President-elect Donald Trump, who is poised to green-light key job-creating projects from the Atlantic Coast to Alaska.

With the election of Donald Trump -- and a transition team that includes GOP energy lobbyist Mike McKenna and outspoken climate change skeptic Myron Ebell -- both sides now see their fortunes reversing amid Trump’s promise to rescind Obama’s signature Clean Power Plan and jump-start oil, and natural gas projects.

“I think 80 percent of President Obama’s policies will be reversed very soon after Trump moves into the White House,” Robert McNally, the president of the Rapidan Group, the energy consulting firm, and former official in the George W. Bush administration, told FoxNews.com. “The Trump administration will reverse the global warming principles enacted under Obama and he will stop the politicization of infrastructure. This will definitely spur on the growth of the oil and gas industries.”

One of the biggest environmental flashpoints of Obama’s presidency, the pipeline’s final phase – which would create a shorter route for American and Canadian crude oil coming from Alberta to Nebraska – was rejected by Obama for not serving “the national interests of the United States.”

Keystone XL faced stiff opposition from environmental groups and a minority of U.S. lawmakers amid concerns of oil spills in highly sensitive ecological terrain and worries from the Environmental Protection Agency about large increases in greenhouse gas emissions from Alberta’s carbon intensive oil sands.

Throughout his campaign Trump vowed to “immediately approve the Keystone XL pipeline” -- adding he believed it would have no environmental impact and would create hundreds of jobs -- and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is already pressing the president-elect to make it a priority in his first 100 days.

    If I am elected President I will immediately approve the Keystone XL pipeline. No impact on environment & lots of jobs for U.S.
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 18, 2015

TransCanada, the company tasked with building the pipeline, said it's hopeful that Trump will approve the project and that they’re working to convince the president-elect to move on it quickly.

“TransCanada remains fully committed to building Keystone XL,” the company said in a statement sent to FoxNews.com.  “We are evaluating ways to engage the new administration on the benefits, the jobs and the tax revenues this project brings to the table.”

The Obama administration recently moved to restrict drilling in waters off the Eastern Seaboard from 2017 to 2022, but environmentalists, fishermen and those in the East Coast’s tourism industry want to make that restriction permanent before Trump comes into office.

Despite his vocal stance on U.S. energy independence and support of increased oil and gas development, Trump’s stance toward offshore drilling in the Atlantic has been vague -- saying only that he backs it when “done responsibly" -- but if he green-lights drilling in the Atlantic it would make him many friends in U.S. oil and gas companies and could open the possibility to expand drilling other U.S. waters.

Obama, however, could prevent this by invoking an obscure section of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Act that would make it difficult, maybe impossible, for future presidents to reverse the ban. He has used the act before to safeguard parts of Alaska’s Bristol Bay and parts of the Arctic.

Unemployed Coal Miner Confronts Clinton About Saying "We're Going to Put a Lot of Coal Miners and Coal Companies Out of Business"

October 27, 2016

Yahoo News - What did Hillary Clinton mean when she said, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business”?

To Bo Copley, a 39-year-old unemployed West Virginia coal miner, her remark at a CNN forum in March was a direct threat to his future livelihood, family and town. So when Clinton showed up to campaign in Williamson, he let her know how he felt:

“I just want to know how you can say you’re going to put a lot of coal miners out of jobs and then come in here and tell us how you’re gonna be our friend,” he said, sliding a picture of his three children across the table toward her — a moment captured by reporters that catapulted him to at least fleeting local fame.

Months later, when Republican West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito held a hearing in October on “the devastating effects that EPA’s anti coal regulations are having on our state,” Copley was a star witness, describing the events leading up to his layoff as a maintenance planner and foreman at a subsidiary of the mining giant Arch Coal:

“With increasing regulations forcing other mines to close, we would see more and more inspectors on our job. At one point, we had 12 inspectors on our property on the same day. They told us they were all there that day because they had nowhere else to go … That would lead to more violations because of their interpretation of laws. More violations lead to higher cost per ton. Higher cost per ton leads to less profits. Less profits lead to job loss.”

It was a report from the trenches of what Republicans have been calling, since long before the campaign even began, the Obama administration’s “war on coal.” This was a message Donald Trump sought to reinforce at a rally in West Virginia by donning a miner’s hardhat and pretending to wield a shovel, violating a principle of campaigning dating back to 1988, when Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis was photographed in a tank turret, wearing a helmet that memorably reminded many observers of Snoopy: Never put anything weird on your head.

To Clinton, her remark was just a recognition of something that was happening already, and would continue, a result not just of environmental concerns but competition for coal from cheap natural gas. She apologized to Copley for her “misstatement”:

“What I was saying is that the way things are going now, we will continue to lose jobs. That’s what I meant to say and I think that seems to be supported by the facts.” As the media noted, she was actually making a point about the need to bring jobs back to Appalachia and support laid-off miners.

Copley, for his part, was unconvinced, telling reporters after the confrontation that he “would have liked to have heard more of what her plan is” for coal country. He could have read her plan, all 2,180 words of it, including job training, expanded broadband access, combatting drug abuse, and promoting the rich cultural heritage of Appalachia, here. But it probably wouldn’t have mattered; as he also told reporters, he was a Republican who would never support her anyway: “Coal is not the only priority,” he explained. “Her stance on abortion and other things are things I can’t get behind either.” — By Jerry Adler

Obama's "Clean Power Plan" is Closing Down Coal-fired Power Plants, Which Will Cause Electricity Rates to "Necessarily Skyrocket"

On the Clean Power Plan, former Obama Administration Assistant Secretary Charles McConnell said at best it will reduce global temperature by only one one-hundredth of a degree Celsius.

From a review recently completed by the CO2 Coalition (CO2Coalition.org), a new independent, nonpartisan scientific-educational group... (nonpartisans means no one involved has or shows an agenda):

"Carbon dioxide, CO2, is not a pollutant. All living things are built of carbon that comes from CO2. An increase in essential CO2 in the atmosphere will be a huge benefit to plants and agriculture. Satellite measurements show that the increase of CO2 over the last few decades has already caused a pronounced greening of the planet — especially in arid regions."

"We support the cost-effective control of real pollutants associated with the use of fossil fuels — for example, fly ash, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur or smog-forming volatile hydrocarbons. But CO2 isn’t a pollutant, and there’s no reason to control it."

"Warming” from CO2 has been much less than predicted by the climate models the Administration bases his policies on. For 20 years, the temperature has been virtually unchanged, in stark contrast to model predictions."

City officials working to keep DTE Energy Trenton Channel Power Plant open

February 24, 2016

The News-Herald - Despite DTE Energy’s announcement in September of plans to close 25 power plants in Michigan by 2020, Trenton officials remain hopeful the Trenton Channel Power Plant will remain open if it is selected for conversion from coal fueled to natural gas.

Under the administration of President Barack Obama, the Clean Power Plan -- a policy aimed at combating pollutants causing climate change -- was proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in June 2014.

Under terms of the plan, Michigan must reduce its carbon emission rate by 39 percent by 2030. With the expected plant closures, Michigan would be at a 17 percent reduction by 2020.

The transition to natural gas plants is expected to cut carbon dioxide in the air by 50 percent to 60 percent over using coal, according to the plan.

Dating to 2014, the announcement of two of three units slated to close at the Trenton facility left residents wondering about the plant’s future.

At the time, DTE Energy spokeswoman Randi Berris said Unit 9, the largest generating unit at the Trenton Channel, was expected to be the only section open. She said it would continue to provide “reliable, affordable” power for DTE Energy customers.

Despite the Trenton Channel being on the list of plants expected to close between 2020 and 2022, City Administrator Jim Wagner said he is “optimistic that something will be done and DTE Energy’s Trenton Channel Plant will be saved.”

Wagner, council members and other city staff plan to meet with DTE Energy representatives to seek options to keep the facility open.

Closing the plant would impact city services by about 25 percent as it is the municipality’s largest current taxpayer, Wagner said.

Not only would plant workers lose their jobs, but a reduction in firefighters, police officers and sanitary engineers also would have to be made, he said.

“If the Trenton Channel Plant closes, it will leave a much greater impact farther than the city of Trenton,” Wagner said. “… Coal producers will see layoffs in their business from the production standpoint. Rail company profits will reduce because there will be less coal being transported.

“There are many ramifications from closing the plants. … We can only assume that with the reduction of these DTE Energy plants, electricity rates will also go up.”

The Judicial Branch Struck Back Against Obama's Overreach, But Because Justice Scalia's Death Invalidates His Opinions in Pending Cases, Everything is Now Tipped in Obama's Favor

Justice Scalia heard and potentially already cast votes in several high-profile cases. Scalia’s votes in those cases will be invalidated, sending the justices back to the drawing board to renegotiate those decisions. His death will likely also lead to 4-4 splits on some key issues, with the remaining four liberals and four conservatives facing off against each other. When the court splits down the middle on a case, it does not create a binding legal precedent for the country. Whatever the lower court decided is affirmed, and that ruling only applies to their circuit — leaving legal conflicts among circuits unresolved. Or the court can put the case over for re-argument, essentially telling both parties to try again when the court is back to a full bench.


Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia poses with his family in his chambers before court ceremonies on Sept. 26, 1986, in Washington. Pictured are, front row, from left: Margaret Jane; Justice Scalia, Christopher and Mary. In the back are, from left: Maureen Scalia, Ann Forrest, Catherine, Matthew, Eugene, John and Paul. (Bob Daugherty/Associated Press)

Justice Antonin Scalia’s son spoke of his father's influence on his family at his funeral Feb. 20. Rev. Paul Scalia said "God blessed dad with a love for his family." Click here for video. 

The legislative and judicial branches strike back against Obama’s overreach

“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” - Newton’s Third Law of Motion 

By George F. Will, Opinion Writer at The Washington Post

February 19, 2016

  

Notice the Newtonian physics of America’s Madisonian system. Barack Obama’s Wilsonian hostility to the separation of powers, expressed in his executive authoritarianism, is provoking equal and opposite reactions from the judicial and legislative branches.

The Supreme Court has inflicted on Obama a defeat accurately described as the court’s most severe rebuke of a president since it rejected Harry Truman’s claim that inherent presidential powers legitimated his seizure of the steel industry during the Korean War. The court has blocked Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which rests on the rickety premise that the Clean Air Act somehow, in a way unsuspected for four decades, empowers the Environmental Protection Agency to annihilate the right of states to regulate power generation.

It is unprecedented for the Supreme Court to stop a regulatory regime before a lower court has ruled on its merits. This is condign punishment for the EPA’s arrogance last year after the court held that it had no authority for a rule regulating fossil fuel-fired power plants in Michigan. The EPA snidely responded with a gloating statement that the court’s decision came too late to prevent it from imposing almost $10 billion in costs under the illegal rule.

The legislative branch, too, is retaliating against executive overreach. Consider the lethal letter Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) sent to the Education Department concerning its Office for Civil Rights.

The Supreme Court Sided with Objective Science Against Obama, and Now Justice Scalia is Dead

In December 2015, President Barack Obama vetoed two measures that would have blocked steps that his administration is taking to address climate change. One would have nullified carbon pollution standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. The second would have voided a set of national standards designed to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas pollution from existing power plants. In a letter notifying Congress of his decision, Obama says climate change is a "profound threat" that must be addressed. Obama has made addressing climate change a priority. He recently praised a new international climate agreement reached at a Paris conference and credited his administration as being a driving force behind the deal. He rejected the measures through a rare "pocket veto," intended to be used when Congress has adjourned. A pocket vote essentially takes effect when the president fails to sign a bill within 10 days. [Source]

Tuesday night, February 9, 2016, even as votes were being tallied in New Hampshire, the Supreme Court shocked many — including the Obama administration — by putting on hold the president’s signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, pending resolution of a lawsuit against it by a number of states, utilities and coal companies. Everybody knew the Clean Power Plan would face major legal challenges, but few thought they’d significantly derail it so early on. One legal expert, the Sierra Club’s Bruce Nilles, told The Washington Post it was “unprecedented for the Supreme Court to stay a rule at this point in litigation. They do this in death-penalty cases.”

Saturday morning, February 13, 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead in a hotel room. Scalia spent his final hours as part of a group of about 35 weekend guests who had arrived at Cibolo Creek Ranch, a West Texas resort, at around noon Friday. [Source]

The Supreme Court sided with science against Obama

February 15, 2016

New York Post - In his State of the Union Address, President Obama invited “anybody [who] wants to dispute the science around climate change . . . to have at it.”

The Supreme Court’s response? Thank you, Mr. President, for the offer. We will.

On Feb. 9, the court upheld a delay of Obama’s war on fossil fuels, which is supposed to “stop climate change,” in the form of new restrictions on factories’ greenhouse-gas emissions. Apparently a majority of the court is less confident of the “science around climate change” than Obama is.

As well they should be. Obama’s policies will have negligible effects on the climate and will be all pain with no gain.

Two critical points about “the science around climate change” stand out in a review recently completed by the CO2 Coalition, a new independent, nonpartisan scientific-educational group (CO2Coalition.org).

First, carbon dioxide, CO2, is emphatically NOT a “pollutant.” All living things are built of carbon that comes from CO2. An increase in essential CO2 in the atmosphere will be a huge benefit to plants and agriculture. Satellite measurements show that the increase of CO2 over the last few decades has already caused a pronounced greening of the planet — especially in arid regions.

For tens of millions of years, plants have been coping with a “CO2 famine.” Current CO2 concentrations of a few hundred parts per million (ppm) are close to starvation levels compared to the several thousand ppm that prevailed over most of history.

We support the cost-effective control of real pollutants associated with the use of fossil fuels — for example, fly ash, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur or smog-forming volatile hydrocarbons. But CO2 isn’t a pollutant, and there’s no reason to control it.

Second, the “warming” from CO2 — and yes, CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” — has been much less than predicted by the climate models Obama bases his policies on. For 20 years, the temperature has been virtually unchanged, in stark contrast to model predictions.

The war on fossil fuels isn’t based on science but on unreliable climate models. Rather than trying to correct the models, Team Obama is trying to “dispute the science” by trying to manufacture scary warming trends.

A recent letter to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology by more than 300 experts on data quality pointed out that the feds’ attempt to erase or ignore evidence of the recent lack of global warming arguably violated the Data Quality Act of 2001, which requires that “highly influential scientific assessments,” bearing the imprimatur of the federal government, be subject to rigorous external peer review.

It exposes the hollowness of the left’s claim that “97 percent of scientists” support Team Obama’s version of climate science.

Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures are the genuine gold standard — and they show negligible warming for the past two decades. Since the Obama administration can’t read just satellite data (as they have tried to do with surface data), they have unleashed a campaign to discredit the satellite temperature record.

The observational record indicates that the temperature increase by the year 2100 will be less than 1 degree Celsius as a result of CO2 emissions. This small temperature increase, together with the robust benefits to plants and agriculture, will benefit the world.

How about other concerns? Some claim that more CO2 causes extreme weather, accelerating a rise in sea levels or other horrors. But extensive global measurements reveal no increase in extreme weather: The trends in tornadoes, droughts, floods and hurricanes are flat over the past generation. Sea levels are rising at about the same rate they did before the rising concentrations of CO2 during the past century.

Inexpensive, reliable energy from fossil fuels has raised living standards in the developed world to levels that only the wealthy could dream of a few centuries ago. Eliminating fossil fuels would do nothing to stop climate change, but it would keep much of the developing world in poverty.

Rising energy costs would hurt the less privileged populations of the developed world as well.

Obama Vetoes Two Measures That Would Have Stopped His Plans to Implement Carbon Policies

Notice that the establishment media is now calling CO2 "carbon pollution." 

CO2 is Carbon Dioxide: A heavy odorless colorless gas formed during respiration and by the decomposition of organic substances; absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis.

CO is Carbon Monoxide: An odorless very poisonous gas that is a product of incomplete combustion of carbon (the burning of Gasoline, Kerosene, Propane, Fuel Oil for Trucks and also home heating, and wood burning).

It is CO emissions which need to be reduced and eventually eliminated to the lowest limits possible, not CO2 which is what all animals exhale and all plants, flowers and trees absorb and convert to Oxygen. 

Botanist studies show that WE NEED MORE CO2 TO HAVE A GREEN EARTH. Anti-scientists (unfortunately, our president) associate CO2 with the smoke from chimneys and truck exhausts because they are totally ignorant of science. CO2 IS A CLEAR, ODORLESS, COLORLESS, TASTELESS GAS THAT COMBINES WITH SUNSHINE AND WATER IN PHOTOSYNTHESIS TO CREATE GREEN PLANTS.

The carbohydrates in plants are at the base of the food chain. Less CO2 = less life on Earth. Also, warmer temperatures oxidize Earth's plant matter to increase CO2, rather than more CO2 causing warmer temperatures.

Now that the Earth is cooling, on average, the scare tactics of climatologists who are on the research-funding gravy train, are seen as false. Only those benefiting from such scare tactics are clinging to such absurd claims that go against the current and historical data. But such "climatologists," making money based on the fears they spread, have destroyed data that didn't fit their predictions and are selecting data from hot airport tarmacs and asphalt paving areas in cities to claim warming.

IN FACT, THE EARTH OVERALL HAS BEEN COOLING SLIGHTLY SINCE 1999. Historical data show that about 2022 we will know definitely that a Maunder Minimum is setting in. North America and Europe will cool at a faster rate. MOVE SOUTH NOW AND AVOID THE RUSH (when Obama is exposed as an anti-science demagogue who has been taken by a conspiracy of "climatologists"). SCIENCE IS NOT VERBAL ARGUMENTS TO MAKE YOUR SIDE WIN A DEBATE (scientifically ignorant lawyers do that)!!! [Source]

Once everyone thinks of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, the fight is over. Republicans should just roll over and let the Democrats destroy the country. 

Obama vetoes anti-climate change measures passed by Congress

December 19, 2015

AP - President Barack Obama has vetoed two measures that would have blocked steps that his administration is taking to address climate change.

One would have nullified carbon pollution standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. The second would have voided a set of national standards designed to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas pollution from existing power plants.

In a letter notifying Congress of his decision, Obama says climate change is a "profound threat" that must be addressed.

Some Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates scoff at the climate science [man is not the cause of climate change].

Obama has made addressing climate change a priority. He recently praised a new international climate agreement reached at a Paris conference and credited his administration as being a driving force behind the deal.

He rejected the measures through a rare "pocket veto," intended to be used when Congress has adjourned, as it did Friday for the year. A pocket vote essentially takes effect when the president fails to sign a bill within 10 days.

Rockefeller-owned ExxonMobil Predicts Global Warming Catastrophe

We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test. We must ask whether a "climate-industrial complex" is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain.

Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets.

The Rockefeller family built Standard Oil of New York, which later became Mobil, a predecessor to Exxon/Mobil. On December 6, 2015, the Zionist-controlled Washington Post reported on Exxon's position on the man-made global warming scam:

"During a visit to The Post last week, Exxon experts told us that with no government action, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible."

The Rockefeller family has held a very special interest in environmental matters for decades. Population control and reduction is a central directive of many Rockefeller initiatives. The recent focus on global warming scam is no different. Steven Rockefeller's Earth Charter is an example.

The partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians, and alarmist campaigners truly is an unholy alliance. The climate-industrial complex does not promote discussion on how to overcome this challenge in a way that will be best for everybody. We should not be surprised or impressed that those who stand to make a profit are among the loudest calling for politicians to act. Spending a fortune on global carbon regulations will benefit a few, but dearly cost everybody else.

There are countless real environmental issues, such as genetically-engineered organisms being released into the environment causing unknown mutations, consuming potentially dangerous cloned-animal products, mass honey-bee die offs, etc. However, global warming was identified by the Club of Rome in their 1991 report, The First Global Revolution, as a unifier to funnel the energy of citizens and businesses alike into supporting globalist initiatives. The report states:

"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... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

Majority of Americans are Strongly Opposed to Increasing Taxes on Electricity or Gasoline as a Way to Fight 'Global Warming'; NASA Pushes Propaganda for Paris Climate Talks, Claiming It Soon Will Be Too Hot to Grow Food

Two-thirds of Americans want U.S. to back global climate deal: NYT/CBS poll

Seventy-five percent of Americans polled said that global warming was already having a serious environmental impact or would in the future. Nine in 10 Democrats agreed, compared with 58 percent of Republicans. One-third of Republicans said they believed it would never have much of an impact on the environment. But just one in five Americans favored increasing taxes on electricity as a way to fight global warming; six in 10 were strongly opposed, including 49 percent of Democrats. And support was not much higher for increasing gasoline taxes, at 36 percent over all. Thinking about policies to reduce carbon emissions, Americans generally favor regulating business activity more than taxing consumers.

November 30, 2015

New York Times - A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

Public support for international and domestic measures to address climate change may provide a lift for American negotiators attending the major United Nations climate change conference that began in Paris on Monday. But the stark partisan divide on climate policy will still make it difficult for President Obama and his successors to put in place the energy and climate policies that will be needed to support a robust international agreement, the goal of the Paris talks.

Republicans in Congress and many Republican governors oppose Mr. Obama’s proposal to limit emissions from power plants, for example, complicating his ability to meet targets he has set to comply with United Nations climate goals. And the Obama administration has made it clear that any agreement it would sign in Paris would not take the form of an internationally enforced treaty that would require Senate ratification.

Still, the shift in public opinion has many advocates of strong climate change measures hopeful that the Paris talks could provide a turning point.

“If you just look over the past five or six years since Copenhagen, there’s been a shift,” said David Waskow, director of the International Climate Initiative at the World Resources Institute, referring to the largely inconclusive global summit meeting that took place in Denmark in 2009. 

“There’s much more awareness of issues like sea level rise, water scarcity and climate instability.”

The Religion of Global Warming Unites "Interfaith Climate Pilgrims"

Opening the summit near Paris on November 30, heads of government from big carbon burning countries such as U.S. President Barack Obama and China's Xi Jinping will seek common cause with leaders from the smallest emitters in Africa.

Interfaith 'climate pilgrims' hand petition to UN ahead of COP21

November 29, 2015

AFP - Hundreds of people from around the world gathered in Saint-Denis, north of Paris, on Saturday to give a "climate justice" petition signed by over a million to the UN climate chief ahead of the COP21 conference.

The so-called climate pilgrims included Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and Protestants -- representing the world's major religions and their call for action to save the Earth from the devastating effects of climate change.

The petition signed by 1,780,528 citizens worldwide was given to Christiana Figueres, in charge of climate issues at the United Nations, along with Nicolas Hulot, French President Francois Hollande's special envoy for the planet.

"In their name, we call for a drastic reduction of carbon emissions and for the rich countries to help the poorer ones facing climatic changes," said Brazilian cardinal Claudio Hummes.

"The time has come. Let us pray and act for climate justice," he said to huge applause from the crowd.

An emotional Figueres thanked the climate pilgrims, saying that "despite differences, we can all unite as human beings to respond together to this challenge", which world leaders will address at the COP21 conference that opens Monday near Paris.

The goal is to limit average global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), perhaps less, over pre-Industrial Revolution levels by curbing fossil fuel emissions blamed for climate change.

Related:

• Worldwide rallies demand action on climate change AFP
• Protesters push leaders to avert climate catastrophe AFP
• Pope: It Would Be 'Catastrophic' If 'Special Interests' Derailed Climate Talks Huffington Post

EPA Spent Millions on Guns, Ammunition, Camouflage, Radar and Night-vision Equipment, Amphibious Assault Ships, Armament Training Services, Etc.

Why Did the Environmental Protection Agency Spend $1.4 Million on Guns?

October 30, 2015

Washington Times - Even those of us who have worked in Washington for many years and become accustomed to the inner workings of government can still be amazed by what lurks behind the curtain sometimes. Case in point: the Environmental Protection Agency.

Most Americans have at least heard of the EPA, even if they have only a dim notion of what the agency actually does. It tends to skate along under the radar, unless something unusual happens, such as the toxic spill that turned the Colorado’s Animas River orange last August. Of course, what really made the spill unusual is that the EPA itself caused it.

Otherwise, Americans don’t hear much about the agency. So many of them would probably be as unpleasantly surprised as I was by a new report by Open the Books, a nonprofit group that promotes government transparency. Its look into the EPA’s spending habits is alarming, to put it mildly.

The first thing that strikes you is the EPA’s spendthrift ways. Even if times were flush and government coffers were overflowing (which is far from the case), the agency spends money like it’s expecting the Second Coming next week. The Open the Books audit covered tens of thousands of checks the EPA wrote from 2000 to 2014, with hundreds of millions going toward such things as luxury furnishings, sports equipment, and “environmental justice” grants to raise awareness of global warming.

The second thing that hits you is where the rest of the money goes. The headline of an op-ed by economist Stephen Moore in Investor’s Business Daily sums it up well: “Why Does the EPA Need Guns, Ammo, and Armor to Protect the Environment?”

And not just a few weapons. Open the Books found that the agency has spent millions of dollars over the last decade on guns, ammo, body armor, camouflage equipment, unmanned aircraft, amphibious assault ships, radar and night-vision gear, and other military-style weaponry and surveillance activities.

“We were shocked ourselves to find these kinds of pervasive expenditures at an agency that is supposed to be involved in clean air and clean water,” said Open the Books founder Adam Andrzejewski. “Some of these weapons are for full-scale military operations.”

Among the EPA’s purchases:

• $1.4 million for “guns up to 300mm.”
• $380,000 for “ammunition.”
• $210,000 for “camouflage and other deceptive equipment.”
• $208,000 for “radar and night-vision equipment.”
• $31,000 for “armament training devices.”

The list goes on. It’s filled with the kind of equipment you’d expect to be purchased by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, not an agency ostensibly designed to protect the environment.

But as it turns out, armed, commando-style raids by the EPA are not unheard of. One such raid occurred in 2013, in a small Alaskan town where armed agents in full body armor reportedly confronted local miners accused of polluting local waters. Perhaps the agency is gearing up for more operations like that one?

If so, the EPA wouldn’t be all that unique. According to the Justice Department, there are now 40 federal agencies with more than 100,000 officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests. They include the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Bureaucrats Seriously Discussing Use of Carbon Tax or Carbon Credit Trading Scheme to Control Emissions in the "Battle Against Global Warming"

Six years ago lawmakers, business leaders, and economists seriously discussed using a carbon tax or carbon credit trading scheme to control emissions in the "battle against global warming." The House in 2009 approved a bipartisan “cap and trade” bill designed to impose ceilings on industrial carbon emissions, while allowing utilities and other businesses to swap credits to meet their targets. But the bill authored by former Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts – now a senator – was defeated "among general fears about a faltering economy."

However, last month, in June 2015, Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Brian Schatz of Hawaii unveiled the American Opportunity Carbon Free Act, a bill that would impose a $45 per metric ton fee on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel. The proposed tax reflects the federal government’s latest estimate of the “social cost of carbon” – its measure of the alleged damage climate change causes to the environment, public health and the economy. With world leaders, environmentalists and even Pope Francis clamoring for tough action to "slow the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions," which the government claims to be a major factor in climate change, the idea of imposing a tax on industrial carbon emissions and pollutants is getting a fresh look.

Whitehouse and Schatz contend that their proposed tax – which would be increased by two percent per year – along with government credits for carbon sequestration, could cut U.S. emissions by at least 40 percent by 2025 – a reduction far greater than the 26 percent to 28 percent the United States has pledged to achieve through regulatory changes over the same period. Rep. John Delaney (D-MD) is promoting a similar version of a coal tax.

The Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution and other think tanks have begun promoting a carbon tax as a "vital component of comprehensive tax reform." While it’s unlikely that Congress will take on major tax reform until after the 2016 presidential election, proponents say they want to get an early start in building support for a "versatile tax that could generate tens of billions of dollars that could be used for an array of worthy causes."

“The resulting revenue could finance tax reductions, spending priorities or deficit reduction – policies that could offset the tax’s distributional and economic burden, improve the environment, or otherwise improve Americans’ well-being,” economist Donald Marron and researchers Eric Toder and Lydia Austin wrote in a new report for the Tax Policy Center.

Global warming is nothing but a hoax to enact a carbon tax. Move to the city...Right!!! Let's increase density so the elite can take the remaining rural properties, farms and pastures while the rest of mankind lives like sardines in a can. People need to wake up to the fact that central banks and their international corporations run almost the entire planet, that wars are waged to gain more money and control, and that ultimately the goal is a One World Government under a oligarchy where mankind will be no more than workhorses crammed together into a small footprint of land while the statists/elitists roam freely over the rest of it. We are like sheep being led to the slaughter.

Water vapor is the overwhelming greenhouse gas [it is 30 to 50 times more important than carbon dioxide (CO2)], and CO2 attributed to man is minuscule. Yet government-paid scientists claim HUMAN CO2 is the primary climate driver and must be eliminated to save the earth. Of course man is prideful enough to think he is a major player when in actuality man is an insignificant producer of CO2.

The greatest amount of CO2 is locked up in plants, rocks and the oceans. It should not be surprising that these each contribute more CO2 emissions than any other sources. This is a good thing, since there is a relatively stable and finite amount of both oxygen and carbon on this planet.

If it weren’t for carbon dioxide, the earth could well be a frozen ball in space, and life, as we know it, would probably not be able to survive.

The largest emitters of carbon dioxide are volcanic eruptions, forest and wild fires, and natural decomposition of plants and animals. Thankfully, ocean water has a great propensity for absorbing this gas, and ,as ice melts, it means that the oceans can take in a great deal more CO2.

Obama, the Chicago Climate Exchange, and the Climate Billionaires

U.S. unveils sweeping plan to slash power plant pollution

Ahead of power plant push, Obama ties climate change to health hazards

June 2, 2014

Rueters - The U.S. power sector must cut carbon dioxide emissions 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels under federal regulations unveiled on Monday that form the centerpiece of the Obama administration's climate change strategy.

The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal is one of the most significant environmental rules proposed by the United States, and could transform the power sector, which relies on coal for nearly 38 percent of electricity. It also set off a political backlash likely to run well into next year.

Gina McCarthy, EPA administrator, said on Monday that between 2020 and 2030, the amount of carbon dioxide the proposal would reduce would be more than double the carbon pollution from the entire U.S. power sector in 2012.

States will have flexible means to achieve ambitious but attainable targets, regardless of their current energy mixes. States which rely heavily on coal-fired power plants are thought to have the toughest tasks ahead.

"The flexibility of our Clean Power Plan affords states the choices that lead them to a healthier future. Choices that level the playing field, and keep options on the table, not off," McCarthy said in remarks at EPA headquarters on Monday.

The plan had come under pre-emptive attack from business groups and many Republican lawmakers as well as Democrats from coal-heavy states like West Virginia before it was unveiled.

But the 645-page plan looked less restrictive than some had feared, with targets easier to reach because emissions had already fallen by about 10 percent by 2013 from the 2005 baseline level, partly due to retirement of coal plants in favor of cleaner-burning natural gas.

The plan gives states multiple options to achieve their emission targets, such as improving power plant heat rates; using more natural gas plants to replace coal plants; ramping up zero-carbon energy, such as solar or nuclear; and increasing energy efficiency.

States can also use measures such as carbon cap-and-trade systems as a way to meet their goals.
Share prices for major U.S. coal producers like Arch Coal, Peabody Energy and Alpha Natural Resources closed at or near multi-year lows on Monday.

A LEGACY ISSUE

Monday's rules cap months of outreach by the EPA and White House officials to an array of interests groups.

The country's roughly 1,000 power plants, which account for nearly 40 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, face limits on carbon pollution for the first time.

Climate change is a legacy issue for President Barack Obama, who has struggled to make headway on foreign and domestic policy goals since his re-election.

But major hurdles remain. The EPA's rules are expected to stir legal challenges on whether the agency has overstepped its authority. A 120-day public comment period follows the rules' release.

The National Association of Manufacturers, a long-time EPA foe, argued on Monday that the power plant plan was "a direct threat" to its members' competitiveness. 

The electric utility industry, encompassing plants that use resources from coal and natural gas to wind was more circumspect about the plan.

“While the 2030 reduction target is ambitious, it appears that utilities may be allowed to take advantage of some of their early actions,” the Edison Electric Institute said.

Lawmakers representing big coal states lashed out.

Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Republican leader in the U.S. Senate, termed the rules a "dagger to the heart of the middle class" that would damage the economy.

Republicans are trying to wrest control of the Senate from Democrats in November's elections. Four of the states with Senate seats in play are among the top 10 coal producers nationally: West Virginia, Kentucky, Montana and Colorado.

Obama, on a conference call with public health groups, said Americans' electricity bills would shrink, not rise, as the rules spur investment in new technologies.

On the contrary, in January 2008, Barack Obama said (see video above): "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

The EPA's McCarthy also forecast that the regulations could yield over $90 billion dollars in climate and health benefits.

Soot and smog reductions that would be achieved through the plan would translate into a $7 health benefit for every dollar invested in the plan, she said.

The EPA estimates that reducing exposure to particle pollution and ozone could prevent up to 150,000 asthma attacks in children and as many as 3,300 heart attacks by 2030, among other impacts.

The rules, when finalized, could give Washington more clout in international talks next year to develop a framework for fighting climate change. The United States is eager for emerging industrial economies such as China and India to do more to reduce their emissions.

Comments:

Carbon tax schemes are predicated on the illusion of anthropogenic climate change. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history, however, constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. A large body of scientific research — including a NASA study — suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years, not humans.

Trading carbon credits in carbon markets is the newest investment scheme. Energy traders and Wall Street financiers are at the heart of this scheme. The Chicago Climate Exchange (a carbon trading exchange), which includes some 400 companies, is now the largest cap-and-trade market in the world. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs.

While on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama helped fund the Chicago Climate Exchange, which will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he has pushed through Congress as president. In 2000 and 2001, while still a state senator, Obama voted along with other members of the board of the Joyce Foundation to give more than $1.1 million to help the Climate Exchange get off the ground.

The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Al Gore and Maurice Strong. For years now, Gore and Strong have been cashing in on lucrative carbon trading schemes.

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself—the Generation Investment Management LLP, an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner. The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first, and North America’s only, cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”  Strong, the silent partner (the Canadian-born Strong is little known in the United States), is a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of an Oil-for-Food beleaguered Kofi Annan. He spends most of his time in China where he has been working to make the communist country the world’s next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless, is the big cheese in the underworld of climate change and is one of the main architects of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Climate Exchange is the brainchild of Richard Sandor, an economics professor who has worked for both the Chicago Mercantile Association and the Chicago Board of Trade. Known as "Mr. Derivative" for his work in creating interest rate futures markets, Sandor first proposed the creation of the Climate Exchange in 2000, just before the signing of the Kyoto Accord on greenhouse gas reduction. The United States subsequently refused to participate in the accords. Speaking at the State of Green Business Forum in Chicago in 2010, Sandor urged the attendees to do whatever they could to push for a national cap-and-trade program. After giving a quick history of where value creation for businesses came from in past decades, he said that the next big area for value creation will be in the commoditization of air and water -- they will be made commodities through cap and trade (see the video, "The Story of Cap and Trade," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYi78LaY8u4). In the case of carbon, that would set quotas for carbon emissions, and those who exceed their quotas can trade those extra cuts to those that are unable to use their own quotas.

Globally, the number of CDM projects (UN-backed clean development mechanism) entering the pipeline is increasing rapidly. The onset of a carbon tax is already underway in numerous countries (the World Bank will be the collection agency for a global CO2 tax). In January 2005, a new system of CO2 emissions trading went into effect in the European Union. David Miliband, the UK's environment secretary, announced that Britain would become the world's first nation to legislate a climate change bill setting legally binding timetables for a low-carbon economy. This decision affects every British industry, business and household. Britain's former prime minister, Gordon Brown, said: "My ambition is to build a global carbon market founded on the EU emissions trading scheme and centered in London." Every citizen would be issued a carbon "credit card" or "ration card" — to be swiped every time they buy petrol, pay an energy utility bill, or book an airline ticket — under a nationwide carbon rationing scheme (according to a feasibility study commissioned by Miliband). Under the scheme, everybody would be given an annual allowance of the carbon they could expend on a range of products, probably food, energy and travel. If they wanted to use more carbon, they would be able to buy it from somebody else on a carbon exchange. In the future, each person will start the year with 1,000 carbon credits, for example, on a carbon ration card. Personal carbon rations would cover everyone’s direct use of energy in the household and for personal transport, including air travel. Each time someone fills up their car, for example, they would put the card in a slot on the pump and it will deduct a few points.

The main features of personal carbon rations are:
· An equal annual ration is allocated for each adult, with a smaller one for children.
· Rations are tradable.
· The ration covers the direct energy used in the household and for personal travel.
· A phased year-on-year reducing ration is signaled well in advance.
· The arrangement is mandatory (in order to be effective, carbon rationing would have to be mandatory, just like Obamacare)

From the document, "Kyoto Chip - Awareness raising of personal CO2":

"There is no easy technical way to deal with CO2. The best way to reduce it and the other emissions is to use the car only when it is necessary and to cycle, walk or use public transport where possible. Personal awareness is the other path to follow. It is obvious that not only the choice of which vehicle and its fuel efficiency is important, but also how much use is made of the vehicle.

"The approach suggested in this document aims at creating even greater awareness and an active personal involvement by individual European citizens in their personal level of CO2 emission. Once every driver knows their annual allowance, and how much their vehicle uses, then they can make much better choices about the trips they make and which mode they choose to make them.

"Part of this is already done in the UK where the annual ‘road tax’ is based on the CO2 emissions of the vehicle you own. We believe that the next logical step is to empower citizens by giving them the knowledge and possibility to make a real change based on their choices and behavior.

"The ’Kyoto Chip’ is about CO2 rationing on a personal level and -- doing so- - raising more awareness about personal CO2 use. David Miliband, the UK environment secretary, is keen to set up a pilot scheme to test the idea, and has asked officials from four government departments to report on how it could be done. The move marks the first serious step towards state-enforced limits on the carbon use of individuals, which scientists say may be necessary in the fight against climate change."

"It extends the principle of carbon trading -- already in place between heavy polluters such as power companies and steel makers -- to consumers, with heavy carbon users forced to buy unused allowances from people with greener lifestyles."

http://www.velomondial.net/page_display.asp?pid=29

New Federal Report Paves the Way for Cap & Trade and Carbon Credit Exchange Markets

This federal report is timed perfectly for passage of the Climate Protection Act of 2013, introduced by Sanders and Boxer on February 14, 2013, which is currently before the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This bill will pave the way for a new carbon tax and cap and trade scheme.

Federal report: Warming disrupts Americans' lives

May 6, 2014
 
Associated Press - Global warming is rapidly turning America the beautiful into America the stormy, sneezy and dangerous, according to a new federal scientific report. And those shining seas? Rising and costly, the report says.

Climate change's assorted harms "are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond," the National Climate Assessment concluded Tuesday. The report emphasizes that warming and all-too-wild weather are changing daily lives, using the phrase "climate disruption" as another way of saying global warming.

Still, it's not too late to prevent the worst of climate change, says the 840-page report, which the White House is highlighting as it tries to jump-start often-stalled efforts to curb heat-trapping gases.

White House science adviser John Holdren called the report, the third edition of a congressionally mandated study, "the loudest and clearest alarm bell to date signaling the need to take urgent action." Later this summer, the Obama administration plans to propose new and controversial regulations restricting gases that come from existing coal-fired power plants.

Some fossil energy groups, conservative think tanks and Republican senators immediately assailed the report as "alarmist." Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said President Barack Obama was likely to "use the platform to renew his call for a national energy tax. And I'm sure he'll get loud cheers from liberal elites — from the kind of people who leave a giant carbon footprint and then lecture everybody else about low-flow toilets."

Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana said the report was supposed to be scientific but "it's more of a political one used to justify government overreach."

The report — which is full of figures, charts and other research-generated graphics — includes 3,096 footnotes to other mostly peer-reviewed research. It was written by more than 250 scientists and government officials, starting in 2012. A draft was released in January 2013, but this version has been reviewed by more scientists, including twice by the National Academy of Science which called it "reasonable," and has had public comment. It is written in a bit more simple language so people can realize "that there's a new source of risk in their lives," said lead author Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University in Connecticut.

Environmental groups praised the report. "If we don't slam the brakes on the carbon pollution driving climate change, we're dooming ourselves and our children to more intense heat waves, destructive floods and storms and surging sea levels," said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Scientists and the White House called it the most detailed and U.S.-focused scientific report on global warming.

"Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present," the report says. "Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington state and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience."

The report looks at regional and state-level effects of global warming, compared with recent reports from the United Nations that lumped all of North America together.

"All Americans will find things that matter to them in this report," said scientist Jerry Melillo of the Marine Biological Laboratory, who chaired the science committee that wrote the report. "For decades we've been collecting the dots about climate change, now we're connecting those dots."

In a White House conference call with reporters, National Climatic Data Center Director Tom Karl said his two biggest concerns were flooding from sea level rise on the U.S. coastlines — especially for the low-lying cities of Miami, Norfolk, Virginia, and Portsmouth, New Hampshire — and drought, heat waves and prolonged fire seasons in the Southwest.

Even though the nation's average temperature has risen by as much as 1.9 degrees since record keeping began in 1895, it's in the big, wild weather where the average person feels climate change the most, said co-author Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University climate scientist. Extreme weather like droughts, storms and heat waves hit us in the pocketbooks and can be seen by our own eyes, she said.

The report says the intensity, frequency and duration of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes have increased since the early 1980s, but it is still uncertain how much of that is from man-made warming. Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity and have shifted northward since the 1950s, it says. Also, heavy downpours are increasing — by 71 percent in the Northeast. Heat waves, such as those in Texas in 2011 and the Midwest in 2012, are projected to intensify nationwide. Droughts in the Southwest are expected to get stronger. Sea level has risen 8 inches since 1880 and is projected to rise between 1 foot and 4 feet by 2100.

Climate data center chief Karl highlighted the increase in downpours, which are jumping by 30 percent to 60 percent elsewhere in the country besides the Northeast. He said last week's drenching, when Pensacola, Florida, got up to two feet of rain in one storm and parts of the East had three inches in one day, is what he's talking about.

"The projections for these kinds of changes are to continue as the globe continues to warm and the atmosphere is able to hold more water vapor," Karl said.

Since January 2010, 43 of the lower 48 states have set at least one monthly record for heat, such as California having its warmest January on record this year. In the past 51 months, states have set 80 monthly records for heat, 33 records for being too wet, 12 for lack of rain and just three for cold, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal weather records.

The report also says "climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways." Those include smoke-filled air from wildfires, smoggy air from pollution, and more diseases from tainted food, water, mosquitoes and ticks. And ragweed pollen season has lengthened.

Flooding alone may cost $325 billion by the year 2100 in one of the worst-case scenarios, with $130 billion of that in Florida, the report says. Already the droughts and heat waves of 2011 and 2012 added about $10 billion to farm costs, the report says.

Related:

Climate Protection Act of 2013 (Boxer-Sanders) Will Increase the Price of Fuel and Other Goods and Services and Will Destroy Manufacturing

Globalists are Starting with California to Phase in Their Carbon-free Agenda

Carbon Agenda Sets Stage for Rolling Blackouts in California

August 10, 2012

Infowars.com - It is said that as California goes, so goes the nation. The Golden State is about to experience what the rest of the nation will experience after the globalists phase in their carbon-free agenda under the demonstrably bogus global climate change scam.

“California’s electricity grid operator issued a rare statewide alert on Thursday warning residents to curb power usage in coming days as a heat wave threatens to strain its already taxed network,” Reuters reported on Monday.

The alert instructs residents and businesses to “curb use” during the peak consumption hours of 11:00 AM to 6 PM. The “alert” will last through Sunday.

California Independent System Operation (CAISO) is said to be bracing for a heat wave that is moving toward the state. It will struggle to compensate for the loss of 2,150-megawatts produced by the San Onofre nuclear plant. The plant will remain down through the rest of the summer due to a small radiation leak detected earlier this year.

Reuters reports that an alert issued by CAISO “may serve as a reality check for state leaders and grid officials who are struggling to deal with increasing demands for more carbon-free electricity over the next few years.”

California plans to drastically cut back on traditional sources of electric generation and rely “on renewable power sources, such as solar and wind, while shutting a number of ocean-side plants that supply power around the clock will challenge power grid operators to keep the lights on.”

The federal government is moving ahead with plans to shut down traditional energy plants. In 2011, Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu launched an effort to bankrupt the coal industry through EPA regulations.

The Obama administration’s strict enforcement of draconian EPA regulations has led to new clean-burning coal-fired plants being mothballed and other existing ones being shut down, Infowars.com reported in February of 2011.

During his presidential run, Obama said that “if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted…. Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

“The deliberate deindustrialization of America has nothing to do with protecting the environment. Whereas the competitiveness of America’s energy industry is being crippled by the EPA and the White House, China and Mexico are building dozens of new power plants every year which fall well short of the clean-burning technology standards adhered to in the United States,” Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson wrote on Monday.

“This is about the implementation of the UN’s Agenda 21, which operates under the guise of ‘sustainable development’ yet is clearly part of a stealth agenda to centralize control over energy, bankrupting America in the process as part of the move towards a crony system of one world governance.

Flashback: Obama Declares Carbon Dioxide a Threat to the Planet

The US Environmental Protection agency expects to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in a move that could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation, forming the basis for the United States negotiating position at the United Nations December climate talks in Copenhagen. - US EPA expected to act on carbon dioxide emissions regulation, in major departure from Bush era: reports, Bellona, February 19, 2009

U.S. in Historic Shift on CO2

Obama prefers a legislative approach to curbing global warming. The House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold hearings on an Obama proposal to cap carbon emissions and sell tradable permits that businesses must buy to emit carbon dioxide. The EPA finding comes about two years after the Supreme Court found that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA can regulate it.

April 18, 2009

Wall Street Journal - The Obama administration declared Friday that carbon dioxide and five other industrial emissions threaten the planet. The landmark decision lays the groundwork for federal efforts to cap carbon emissions -- at a potential cost of billions of dollars to businesses and government.

The Environmental Protection Agency finding that the emissions endanger "the health and welfare of current and future generations" is "the first formal recognition by the U.S. government of the threats posed by climate change," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson wrote in a memo to her staff.

The finding could touch every corner of Americans' lives, from the types of cars they drive to the homes they build. Along with carbon dioxide, the EPA named methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride as deleterious to the environment.

Even if the agency doesn't use its powers under the Clean Air Act to curb greenhouse gases, Friday's action improves the chances that Congress will move to create a more flexible mechanism to do so.

On a conference call Friday with environmentalists, EPA officials stressed they would take a go-slow approach, holding two public hearings next month before the findings are official. After that, any new regulations would go through a public comment period, more hearings and a long review.

"Whatever the process it, it will be the time-honored and ordinary process of soliciting public input," an EPA official said.

New regulations driven by the finding could be years away. But unless superseded by congressional action, the EPA ruling eventually could lead to stricter emissions limits. Businesses that stand to be affected range from power plants and oil refineries to car makers and cement producers.

Uncertainty about the impact of such regulation is already affecting some companies. Consol Energy Inc., a big coal and energy company based in Pittsburgh, says it is delaying two large mining projects in Northern Appalachia because of uncertainty around pending carbon emission regulation.

"In terms of starting to move dirt, we would postpone that until there's some clarity," said Thomas Hoffman, vice president of investor relations.

Friday's announcement marks a significant turn in U.S. policy on climate change. The U.S. has never ratified the Kyoto climate treaty. President Bill Clinton, who signed the pact, didn't submit it to the Senate for ratification because of strong opposition to the deal, which didn't impose greenhouse gas limits on China and other developing economies. President George W. Bush also didn't submit the Kyoto treaty for ratification, and largely resisted calls for stronger action on climate change, including the endangerment finding.

That approach began to crumble two years ago, when the Supreme Court found that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and declared that the EPA can regulate it.

With Friday's finding, the U.S. takes a big step closer to European Union nations, which have agreed to Kyoto greenhouse gas limits and are pushing for a new treaty on climate change at a December meeting in Copenhagen.

Some Republicans and business groups that have long blocked action on climate-change legislation shifted positions in response, saying Congress now must act on legislation that would give businesses more flexibility in meeting emissions targets than rules issued under the Clean Air Act.

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D., Mass.), a co-author of sweeping climate change legislation, called the EPA's decision "a game changer."

"It's now no longer a choice between doing a bill or doing nothing," said the lawmaker, who will hold four days of climate change hearings next week before the formal drafting of a bill begins the last week of April. "It is now a choice between regulation and legislation."

Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, sought a middle ground, proposing to focus carbon caps on coal-fired power plants and vehicle tailpipes -- and holding off any move until the nation emerges from recession.

American Electric Power, a utility giant with 5.2 million customers in states from Texas to Michigan to Virginia, is already considering what coal plants would have to be shuttered and how high rates would have to go to comply with either a regulatory or legislative mandates to curb carbon dioxide. AEP spokesman Pat Hemlepp said rate increases stretch from 25% to 50% and beyond, depending on the climate change strategy that finally emerges from Washington.

A proposal by President Barack Obama would cap the emissions of greenhouse gases, then force polluters to purchase emission permits, which could be traded on the open market. The details of the cost of carbon credits have been left to Congress, although Mr. Obama has said he wants all emissions covered, with no allowance for free emissions, as some business groups and lawmakers want.

Heavy carbon emitters, such as utilities that rely on coal-fired power, would pay a hefty price, but the cost of compliance would be alleviated by purchasing extra emissions permits from companies that emit less or can more easily adapt with energy-saving technology.

Regulation, on the other hand, would probably exclude such flexibility, and simply force businesses to reduce emissions. Businesses also see a more favorable playing field in Congress than with EPA regulators, who do not have to face the voters.

"We're pretty confident that Congress is going to be much more sensitive to the economic impact of this than some unelected bureaucrats," said Hank Cox, a spokesman for the National Association of Manufacturers.

The impact of the EPA finding could be dramatic. Using the Clean Air Act, the EPA could raise fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, such as by authorizing nationwide adoption of California's rules for greenhouse-gas tailpipe emissions.

That could require auto makers to produce more hybrid and electric vehicles, such as the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid under development by General Motors Corp. The Volt, however, is expected to carry a sticker of about $40,000, or roughly twice the price of a conventional Chevrolet Malibu sedan.

In electric power, the EPA could force new power plants to include emissions-reduction technology, although it is unclear whether emerging technologies to capture carbon-dioxide emissions would be feasible.

The EPA could order older power plants to be retrofitted, such as with more-efficient boilers, and it could mandate more reliance on wind and other renewable energy if coal-fired power plants can't be made to run more cleanly. That could present technological and infrastructure challenges.

White House officials made clear Friday that President Obama prefers a legislative approach to curbing global warming. The House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold hearings next week on an Obama proposal to cap carbon emissions and sell tradable permits that businesses must buy to emit carbon dioxide. The White House will dispatch senior officials to those hearings, an official said.

The EPA finding comes about two years after the Supreme Court found that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA can regulate it.

See: Climate Treaties and Laws are Not Meant to Aid Developing Countries But to Systematically Transfer Wealth from Developed Countries to Private Financiers Through Carbon Taxes and Carbon Markets

A Clique of Scientists Should Not Have the Power to Make Laws or Run the Economy

In Climate Wars, Advocacy by Some Researchers Brings Risks

March 5, 2012

Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post - Everybody talks about the weather, Mark Twain famously wrote, but nobody does anything about it.

Many climate researchers are no longer following Twain’s adage, noted Michael McPhaden, president of the American Geophysical Union.

“Scientists today, they don’t just want to talk about it. They want to do something about it,” he said in an interview. “We’re the trustees of information which, in many ways, is of critical benefit to society.”

Some researchers are taking on a greater public-advocacy role to confront what many of them consider an existential crisis. But this strategy carries inherent risks, since scientists’ influence stems from the public perception that their credibility is beyond reproach.

That’s why many in the scientific community recoiled when Peter Gleick, a respected hydrologist, admitted he had tricked the Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank that questions whether human activity contributes to global warming.

“Integrity is the source of every power and influence we have as scientists,” said Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “We don’t have the power to make laws, or run the economy.”

Georgia Institute of Technology atmospheric scientist Judith Curry says human activity is contributing to climate change but it remains uncertain whether it is or will be “the dominant factor.” She said she respected Gleick’s scientific work but worried about where his activism had taken him.

“Colleagues trying to make criminals out of themselves, and each other, is just an insane situation,” she said.

The stakes involved in this fight were on full display Friday, when the Virginia Supreme Court rejected Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II’s two-year effort to force the University of Virginia to turn over e-mails, drafts and handwritten notes prominent that climate scientist Michael E. Mann had written while serving on the faculty there. Mann, now a professor at Pennsylvania State University, accused Cuccinelli of engaging in a campaign of “character assassination’’against him.

There is no question that climate scientists have mobilized in recent years to talk more publicly about greenhouse-gas emissions from activities such as driving and coal-fired power plants. For years there were only a handful of researchers on both sides of the debate: the late Stanford University professor Stephen Schneider and James E. Hansen, who directs NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, spoke about the risks associated with climate change while Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, questioned the extent to which humans contributed to the problem.

Now dozens of climate scientists have taken on a more public-advocacy role, contending that mounting evidence suggests the world needs to curb greenhouse-gas emissions from the industrial and transport sectors or risk disastrous consequences.

No single event politicized climate researchers more than the posting of more than 1,000 pirated e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in 2009. The incident, which became known as Climate-gate, portrayed several prominent researchers as clubby and dismissive of their colleagues. It convinced researchers such as Spencer that his opponents had “crossed a line” by lobbying the editors of scientific journals not to publish the work of climate skeptics.

Several lawmakers and advocacy groups, including the Heartland Institute, seized upon those e-mails as evidence that researchers had skewed their results to exaggerate the human contribution to climate change. While several independent inquiries cleared the researchers of any academic wrongdoing, the incident convinced many scientists that they need to make a more public case for why climate change is occuring.

Frumhoff, whose group endorses mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions and enlists scientists to take part in the public debate, said “the willingness of people to be actively engaged has increased dramatically” since the leaked East Anglia e-mails.

AGU offers communications training for its members, along with an annual “Climate Day on the Hill” in which it dispatches them to speak with lawmakers about recent scientific findings, and a $25,000 climate communication prize. Several scientists have created a “Climate Science Rapid Response Team” to help lawmakers and members of the media reach researchers quickly, while others have raised more than $30,000 for a Climate Science Legal Defense Fund to aid researchers facing either lawsuits or Freedom of Information Act requests over their work.

Several academics who question the notion that human activities are driving dangerous warming said Gleick’s actions show that climate scientists cannot be trusted. William Harper, a Princeton University physics professor who is chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, wrote in an e-mail that Gleick’s actions demonstrate how radicalized several of them have become.

“Some scientists feel that any hint that something may be rotten in the state of climate is a threat that must be countered by any means possible,” wrote Harper, suggesting that many scientists can fundraise by projecting dire climate impacts.

“If you are saving the planet, along with a good funding source, the ends apparently justify the means.”

Read More...