Trump Wants to Cut Federal Regulations ‘Below the 1960 Level’

December 14, 2017

[ThinkProgress.org] - Before cutting a red ribbon with oversized scissors Thursday afternoon, President Donald Trump touted his administration’s progress in cutting regulations, saying he wants to return the federal government to the level of regulations that existed in 1960.

Over the past 11 months, the Trump administration has canceled or delayed more than 1,500 planned regulatory actions, “more than any previous president, by far,” the president said at a White House event.

“We’re going to cut a ribbon because we’re getting back below the 1960 level and we’ll be there fairly quickly,” he said.

Trump pledged to cut the Federal Regulatory code back down from more than 185,000 pages in 2017 to the 20,000 pages it was in 1960. 

A progress update on the administration’s regulatory rollback was contained in the semi-annual Unified Regulatory Agenda published by the White House Office of Management and Budget Thursday afternoon.

EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Says Carbon Dioxide is NOT a Primary Contributor to Global Warming

"The climate has changed and is always changing. As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on 'remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,'" said White House principal deputy press secretary Raj Shah, in a statement.

March 20, 2017

[CNN] - Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.

"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."

"But we don't know that yet. ... We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis."

The statement contradicts the public stance of the agency Pruitt leads. The EPA's webpage on the causes of climate change states, "Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change."

Pruitt's view is also at odds with the conclusion of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere," NASA and NOAA said in January.

Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, co-chair of the Senate Climate Action Task Force, slammed Pruitt for his comments, calling his views "extreme" and "irresponsible."

"Anyone who denies over a century's worth of established science and basic facts is unqualified to be the administrator of the EPA. Now more than ever, the Senate needs to stand up to Scott Pruitt and his dangerous views," he said in a statement.

Schatz said lawmakers would hold Pruitt accountable through the appropriations process and oversight of the EPA, and by making sure he follows the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

Pruitt previously served as Oklahoma attorney general, where he rose to prominence as a leader in coordinated efforts by Republican attorneys general to challenge President Barack Obama's regulatory agenda. He sued or took part in legal actions against the EPA 14 times.

Democrats and environmentalists opposed Pruitt's nomination to lead the EPA due to his close relationship with fossil fuel companies and his history of casting doubt on climate change. Conservatives and the energy industry have cheered his efforts to push back on what they view as over-regulation under Obama.

Pruitt maintained on Thursday it's possible to be pro-growth, pro-jobs and pro-environment all at once.

"This idea that if you're pro-environment you're anti-energy is just something we've got to change so that attitude is something we're working on very much," he said.

Asked whether he would seek to roll back the EPA's 2009 determination that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a danger to public health, Pruitt suggested he would like to see Congress take up the issue.

"I think all those things need to be addressed as we go forward but not least of which is the response by the legislative branch with respect to the issue," he said.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases from automobiles. In 2014, it determined the agency could also regulate some sources of greenhouse gases, such as power plants.

Pruitt also called the Paris Agreement, an international accord aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change, "a bad deal." He said it puts the United States on a different playing field than developing countries like China and India.

The United States has vowed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. In comparison, China has committed to reach peak carbon emissions levels by 2030, but will try to reach that point sooner.

"I happen to think the Paris accord, the Paris treaty, or the Paris Agreement, if you will, should have been treated as a treaty, should have gone through senate confirmation. That's a concern," he said.

The Paris Agreement was negotiated by the State Department, and future adherence to U.S. commitments made under Obama will be guided by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Tillerson, the former chief of Exxon Mobil, said during his Senate confirmation hearing that he believes the United States should remain a party to the Paris Agreement.

White House-approved Report Concludes Humans are Behind Climate Change

Humans activity is behind the accelerated warming of the planet since the mid-20th century, the latest U.S. National Climate Assessment finds.

The report was prepared by 13 federal agencies and approved by the White House.

Its conclusion contradicts public statements by President Donald Trump and top administration officials who have cast doubt on humans' role in climate change.

November 3, 2017

[CNBC.com] - 2016 is likely to have been the hottest year since global temperatures were recorded in the 19th century.

EPA Director Pruitt Announces Repeal of Clean Power Plan

[Video]

October 9, 2017

(AP) - The head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Monday that he will sign a new rule overriding the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era effort to limit carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.

"The war on coal is over," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt declared in the coal mining state of Kentucky. He said no federal agency "should ever use its authority" to "declare war on any sector of our economy."

For Pruitt, getting rid of the Clean Power Plan will mark the culmination of a long fight he began as the elected attorney general of Oklahoma. Pruitt was among about two-dozen attorney generals who sued to stop President Barack Obama's push to limit carbon emissions.

Closely tied to the oil and gas industry in his home state, Pruitt rejects the consensus of scientists that man-man emissions from burning fossil fuels are the primary driver of global climate change.

President Donald Trump, who appointed Pruitt and shares his skepticism of established climate science, promised to kill the Clean Power Plan during the 2016 campaign as part of his broader pledge to revive the nation's struggling coal mines.

In his order Tuesday, Pruitt is expected to declare that the Obama-era rule exceeded federal law by setting emissions standards that power plants could not reasonably meet.

Pruitt appeared at an event with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at Whayne Supply, a Hazard, Kentucky, company that sells coal mining supplies. The store's owners have been forced to lay off about 60 percent of its workers in recent years.

While cheering the demise of the Clean Power Plan as a way to stop the bleeding, McConnell conceded most of those lost jobs are never coming back.

"A lot of damage has been done," said McConnell, a Kentucky Republican. "This doesn't immediately bring everything back, but we think it stops further decline of coal fired plants in the United States and that means there will still be some market here."

Obama's plan was designed to cut U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The rule dictated specific emission targets for states based on power-plant emissions and gave officials broad latitude to decide how to achieve reductions.

EPA Will No Longer Sponsor the Annual Climate Leadership Awards

August 26, 2017

(Engadget via Reuters) - It's no secret that Scott Pruitt is a climate change skeptic, and the Environmental Protection Agency has been undoing Obama-era policies ever since he took office. The agency's latest move follows that trend: the EPA has announced that it's no longer sponsoring the 2018 Climate Leadership Awards program, which recognizes companies that take steps to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and publicly report their progress. As a result, the awards program itself and the Climate Leadership Conference that usually goes with it have both been canceled for next year.

EPA spokesperson Jahan Wilcox apologized but didn't explain why the EPA withdrew its support. As he told Reuters in an email "It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that [the EPA doesn't] plan to fund an awards ceremony on climate change." To start with, the administration's proposed budget for 2018 will see its funding cut by 31 percent, which will specifically affect its climate change and pollution initiatives. Even without the budget cut, though, it's hard to imagine the EPA supporting a climate change award in its current state.

Earlier this year, the agency pulled down its climate science pages to reflect the views of the White House. The president also signed an executive order rolling back climate policies approved by the previous administration. And let's not forget that the United States withdrew from the Paris Accord, an agreement between 142 countries to make an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

While the awards program for 2018 was canceled, the EPA's former co-sponsors, non-government organizations C2ES and the Climate Registry, intend to continue the tradition. They're now looking for a new co-sponsor willing to fund and host the program in the future.

G20 Summit Ends with Opt-outs for Trump on Climate, Trade

• Reactions
 
• Sign in to like
 
• Reblog on Tumblr
 
• Share
 
• Tweet
 
• Email

July 9, 2017

(AFP) - World leaders made concessions on trade and climate language to Donald Trump Saturday at the end of the most fractious and riot-hit G20 summit ever, in exchange for preserving a fragile unity of the club of major industrialised and emerging economies.

But the gesture opened the door for others, with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warning that Ankara was now leaning towards not ratifying the landmark Paris climate accord.

Erdogan's threat brought further disarray to a summit that was marred by bilateral quarrels and strife over climate protection and trade.

And in one of the weekend's more bizarre scenes, Trump raised eyebrows by leaving a discussion and letting his daughter Ivanka take his place.

In a departure from final summit declarations that tend to outline consensus on issues that range from fighting terrorism to financial governance, the extraordinary conclusion this year spelt out differences on core issues.

It acknowledged Trump's decision to take the United States out of the 2015 Paris deal and clearly stated Washington's wish to continue using and selling fossil fuels that are a main driver of global warming.

The declaration also stated for the first time the right of countries to protect their markets with "legitimate trade defence instruments" -- wording that essentially gives Trump wiggle room to push on with his "America First" policy.

The nationalistic stance has set him on collision course with many of America's allies, who warned Trump against an isolationist path and starting a trade war.

"Where there is no consensus, the communique spelt out the discord," said host Chancellor Angela Merkel.

- 'Problem' with Paris deal -

But with Trump determinedly leading the US out of the climate accord ratified by 153 countries, Erdogan said he was leaning towards not completing the ratification process.

"After that step taken by America, the position that we adopt is in the direction of not passing it in parliament," Erdogan said.

He also suggested some other, unidentified G20 countries had a "problem" with the agreement.

Thomas Bernes from the think-tank Centre for International Governance Innovation described the final declaration as a "masquerade".

"When compared to the G20 dynamic since the London summit in 2009, it's a step back: a clear signal against protectionism to fight the financial crisis becomes a mixed signal."

- Trail of destruction -

If the meetings within the tightly secured venue were anything but harmonious, outside chaos and violence gripped Germany's second city.

Ten minutes' walk from the summit, charred road barricades, trashed shops, debris and shattered glass bore testimony to an anarchic Friday night of street clashes between protesters and police, when commandos chased militants who hurled rocks from rooftops.

The clashes blocked US First Lady Melania Trump at her residence on Friday, forcing G20 organisers to completely alter a programme for spouses of visiting leaders.

On Saturday, thousands of anti-riot cops were again on guard, as helicopters hovered overhead, with tens of thousands of demonstrators on the march.

Fresh clashes erupted early Sunday in the streets of Hamburg following the end of the G20 summit, with protesters setting fire to a number of vehicles and police reporting more officers injured and more arrests.

- Trump vs. Putin -

Within the summit walls, world leaders were dancing a delicate diplomatic waltz, with discord not only dogging the main G20 conferences, but also adding tension to bilateral asides.

Host Merkel herself admitted that "deep differences" remain with Erdogan after they met on the sidelines of the summit.

But it was Trump's first head-to-head with Russia's leader President Vladimir Putin that stole the show.

A day after Trump slammed Moscow's actions in Ukraine and Syria, the two men had a "robust and lengthy exchange" about allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 US election, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said.

But Tillerson, who was present at the meeting that ran for two hours and 15 minutes, also said the two alpha-male leaders "connected very quickly" with "very clear positive chemistry".

Trump said Saturday that the tete-a-tete was "tremendous" while Putin gave an upbeat assessment of what it meant for future ties.

"There is every reason to believe that we will be able to at least partially re-establish the level of cooperation that we need," Putin said.

After scoring at his Russian encounter, Trump turned to another thorny meeting, this time with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

North Korea's first intercontinental ballistic missile test announced this week was the key issue, with Trump warning Thursday that Pyongyang's military sabre-rattling would bear "consequences".

Entering into talks, Trump told his Chinese counterpart that "something has to be done" on North Korea.

In a summit with its fair share of odd and awkward moments, it was Ivanka's appearance at one discussion alongside Xi, Merkel and Erdogan that caused the biggest stir.

Historian Anne Applebaum took to Twitter to denounce what she described "an unelected, unqualified, unprepared New York socialite" being seen as "the best person to represent American national interests."

Merkel though sought to play down the case, saying that it is "in line with what other delegations do".

Solar Cycles and Global Temperatures

The solar cycle or solar magnetic activity cycle is the nearly periodic 11-year change in the Sun's activity (including changes in the levels of solar radiation and ejection of solar material) and appearance (changes in the number and size of sunspots, flares, and other manifestations).

They have been observed (by changes in the sun's appearance and by changes seen on Earth, such as auroras) for centuries.

The changes on the sun cause effects in space, in the atmosphere, and on Earth's surface. While it is the dominant variable in solar activity, aperiodic fluctuations also occur.

Solar cycles have an average duration of about 11 years. Solar maximum and solar minimum refer respectively to periods of maximum and minimum sunspot counts. Cycles span from one minimum to the next.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

Solar Cycle 23

Solar cycle 23 was the 23rd solar cycle since 1755, when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began.[1][2] The solar cycle lasted 12.3 years, beginning in August 1996 and ending in December 2008. The maximum smoothed sunspot number (SIDC formula) observed during the solar cycle was 180.3 (November 2001), and the starting minimum was 11.2.[3] During the minimum transit from solar cycle 23 to 24, there were a total of 817 days with no sunspots.

This cycle lasted 11.6 years, beginning in May 1996 and ending in January 2008. The maximum smoothed sunspot number (monthly number of sunspots averaged over a twelve-month period) observed during the solar cycle was 120.8 (March 2000), and the minimum was 1.7.[17] A total of 805 days had no sunspots during this cycle.[18][19][20]

Solar Cycle 24

On January 4, 2008, a reversed-polarity sunspot appeared, heralding the arrival of Solar Cycle 24.

Solar Cycle 24 - should end in late 2018 or early 2019 (11 years, unless it is a longer than usual cycle, as was cycle 23, 12.3 years)

The current solar cycle began on January 4, 2008,[13] with minimal activity until early 2010.[14][15] It is on track to have the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750. 

The cycle featured a "double-peaked" solar maximum. The first peak reached 99 in 2011 and the second in early 2014 at 101.[16]

Solar Cycle 24 is the 24th solar cycle since 1755, when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began. It is the current solar cycle, and began in December 2008 with a smoothed minimum of 2.2 (SIDC formula). There was only minimal activity until early 2010. It reached its maximum in April 2014 with smoothed sunspot number only 116.4, the lowest in over a century.

The current solar cycle is currently the subject of research, as it is not generating sunspots in the manner which would be expected. Sunspots did not begin to appear immediately after the last minimum (in 2008) and although they started to reappear in late 2009, they were at significantly lower rates than anticipated.

Prior to the minimum between the end of Solar Cycle 23 and the beginning of Solar Cycle 24, there were essentially two competing theories about how strong Solar Cycle 24 would be. 

In early 2013, after several months of calm, it was obvious that the active 2011 was not a prelude to a widely predicted late 2012-early 2013 peak in solar flares, sunspots and other activity. This unexpected stage prompted some scientists to propose a "double-peaked" solar maximum, which then occurred. The first peak reached 99 in 2011 and the second peak came in early 2014 at 101.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_24

The level of understanding of solar impacts on weather is low.

We are in a declining phase of solar cycle 24.

This latest "Solar Sunday" video was created on 21st May 2017. The video looks at the current situation with regards to the current solar cycle, Solar Cycle 24.

Solar activity is currently at very low levels with just a small number of sunspots. The GWV solar tracker show that sunspot and solar flux are declining compared to where they was when we began the solar tracker last Autumn.

This decline in solar activity is to be expected because we are moving inexorably down into solar minimum (expected around 2018-2019); however, this ins't a linear process so we do some "spikes" in sunspot numbers while the overall trend in both sunspot numbers and solar flux is downwards.

In terms of SC24 sunspot numbers are now at a similar level to where they were in 2010. The big difference between now and 2010 is that 2010 was moving out of solar minimum while the 2017 is moving from solar maximum into solar minimum.

Comparing the current situation in terms of solar activity with the last time was in a "declining" phase of a solar cycle - The last solar cycle SC23 - we can see that solar activity now is at similar levels to where it was around 2005 and 2006.

We should be in true solar minimum for SC24 within the next 12-18 months, so before much longer we'll have a "crash" in sunspot numbers, sustained over several weeks or even months.

Looking further back through the solar cycles we can see that SC24 continues to run closely to SC12 (1877-1890), and SC24 is confirmed as being one of the weakest solar cycles recorded, although not as weak as the Dalton Minimum cycles number 5 and 6.

We continue to wait for official guidance and forecasts for the next solar cycle 2C25 but using the mean monthly smoothed sunspot numbers chart we can see that when we have such dramatic falls in sunspot activity such as we've seen during SC24 is often followed by a solar cycle as weaker or occasionally even weaker than the previous solar cycle.

http://www.gavsweathervids.com/sc24-25.html

The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, named after the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830. Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2.0°C decline over 20 years. The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum. Solar cycles 5 and 6, as shown below, were greatly reduced in amplitude. [Source]

Solar Update June 2017–the sun is slumping and headed even lower
Guest essay by David Archibald at Watts Up With That
June 7, 2017

by Russ Steele

Solar cycle 24 has seen very low solar activity thus far, likely the lowest in 100 years.

Figure 1: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2017

The F10.7 flux shows that over the last three and a half years the Sun has gone from solar maximum through a bounded decline to the current stage of the trail to the minimum. Solar minimum is likely to be still three years away.

The Full Post is HERE.  Stay tuned.  It was a record snow year in California and cosmic ray counts continue to increase. It is going to be an interesting climate year.

It’s the Sun, Stupid! Growing Number Of Studies Show Oceanic Cycles (Climate) Driven By Solar Activity

When Wall Street, Big Business and Rockefeller-owned Exxon Back Climate Change Pact You Know It's a Big Slush Fund for the Psychopaths That Rule the World

Exxon vote shows Wall Street diverging from Trump on climate change

May 31, 2017

(Reuters) - Major investors put U.S. industry on notice on Wednesday that climate change matters, even as reports emerged that President Donald Trump plans to withdraw the United States from an international pact to fight global warming.

A number of large institutional fund firms including BlackRock Inc, the world's largest asset manager, supported a shareholder resolution calling on Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) to share more information about how new technologies and climate change regulations could impact the business of the world's largest publicly traded oil company. The proposal won the support of 62.3 percent of votes cast.

The victory, on such a wide margin, was hailed by climate activists as a turning point in their decades-long campaign to get oil and gas companies to communicate how they would adapt to a low-carbon economy.

With major investors now seeing climate change as a major risk, activists said U.S. corporations will have to be more transparent about the impact of a warming planet even if the United States withdraws from the 2015 Paris climate accord, as Trump promised during his presidential campaign.

"Economic forces are outrunning any other considerations," said Anne Simpson, investment director for sustainability at the California Public Employees' Retirement System, one of the sponsors of the resolution.

She credited big investors in Exxon for the change, since at least some of them switched their votes after last year when a similar measure won just 38 percent support.

"We have seen a sea change in their viewpoint," she said. Many top investors now consider their votes on shareholder proposals "on merit, rather than considering it a test of loyalty to management," she said.

Among Exxon’s top investors, Vanguard Group Inc and BlackRock Inc (BLK.N) opposed last year's call for climate change reporting. A spokeswoman for Vanguard, which has about 7 percent of Exxon's shares, declined to comment on its voting this year.

A person familiar with the matter said funds run by BlackRock, which holds about 6 percent of Exxon shares, voted in favor of the climate resolution.

Filings showing their exact votes are not due for months. But both fund firms and others have taken steps since last year to make it easier to support climate resolutions.

A spokesman for Exxon's ninth-largest investor Northern Trust Corp (NTRS.O), Doug Holt, said it voted in favor of the proposal, citing its own guidelines updated in 2016.

THE VOTE FROM THE STREET

The investment firms' approach reflects a new interest in climate matters among their own investors, who have stuffed money into so-called "green" mutual funds and other vehicles that use environmental factors in their stockpicking.

Wall Street's priorities have shifted the terms of debate at a number of other energy and utility companies. A majority of shareholders voting at Occidental Petroleum Corp (OXY.N) and PPL Corp (PPL.N) called for similar reports on the risks of climate change. Votes on two more of the measures are scheduled for June 7 at Devon Energy Corp (DVN.N) and at Hess Corp (HES.N).

Michael Crosby, involved in corporate outreach for the Midwest Capuchin Franciscans, a religious order, said Wednesday's vote was a rejection of Exxon's arguments it already provides enough detail on its outlook.
 
"The Street is saying, you have to give better evidence," Crosby said.

After the measure passed, Exxon Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods said its board would reconsider its climate communications.

The activists now face the task of maintaining alliances with leaders like Woods who opposed their resolutions but who in some cases support the 195-nation Paris agreement. Exxon said in a March 22 letter to the White House that the Paris deal is "an effective framework for addressing the risks of climate change."

Trump had at least one ally at Exxon's meeting in Dallas, Steven Milloy of Potomac, Maryland, who urged other investors to support his resolution that would make it harder to file proposals like the one on climate change.

Milloy said management should show less concerns for climate issues, which he called misplaced, and cited Trump as a model. "For the first time we have a president who actively opposes climate hysteria," Milloy said.

According to Exxon, Milloy's proposal received support from 1.6 percent of votes cast.

Exxon climate vote puts sector on notice

June 2, 2017

(Reuters) - Exxon Mobil shareholders have finally won a long-sought climate-change victory. Over 60 percent of them backed a move that forces the $340 billion oil giant to ramp up global-warming disclosure, up from under 40 percent in a similar attempt last year. Exxon already embraces the debate more than most. But shareholders want the company to be more forthcoming. Holdout industry peers will have to follow or risk investor ire.

Chief Executive Darren Woods, who took the helm at the beginning of the year, wrote in his first blog post about the importance of managing the risks of climate change. On several occasions Woods has talked about how Exxon does business in an environment in which, under the 2015 Paris accord, nearly 200 countries including China and India have agreed to reduce their carbon emissions.

Trump Fulfills Campaign Pledge and Abandons Global Climate Pact; 'Green Climate Fund' to Redistribute Wealth from Rich Countries to the Tiny Elite That Runs the World

June 1, 2017

(Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Thursday he would withdraw the United States from the landmark 2015 global agreement to fight climate change, a move that fulfilled a major campaign pledge but drew condemnation from U.S. allies and business leaders.

Trump, tapping into the "America First" message he used when he was elected president last year, said the Paris accord would undermine the U.S. economy, cost U.S. jobs, weaken American national sovereignty and put the country at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.

"We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us any more. And they won't be," Trump said.

"The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices and in many cases lax contributions to our critical military alliance," Trump added.

Supporters of the accord, including some leading U.S. business figures, called Trump's move a blow to international efforts to curb the warming of the planet that threatens far-reaching consequences for this century and beyond. Former Democratic President Barack Obama expressed regret over the pullout from a deal he was instrumental in brokering.

"But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got," Obama added.

"Today's decision is a setback for the environment and for the U.S.'s leadership position in the world," Goldman Sachs Group Inc Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein wrote on Twitter.

Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, said his administration would begin negotiations either to re-enter the Paris accord or to have a new agreement "on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers." He complained in particular about China's terms under the agreement.

International leaders including the pope had pressed Trump not follow through on an election campaign promise to abandon the accord, and they lamented his decision.

White House on Global Climate Change: ‘We’re Not Spending Money on That Anymore’

President Obama pledged $3 billion over four years to the Green Climate Fund. 

March 16, 2017

(CNSNews.com) – In line with campaign pledges that riled environmental activists and the Obama administration, President Trump is seeking to eliminate funding for global climate programs including the Green Climate Fund, which the White House on Thursday described as “a waste of your money.”

“Regarding the question as to climate change, I think the president was fairly straightforward,” Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney said in a briefing of the proposed budget for fiscal year 2018..

“We’re not spending money on that anymore,” he said. “We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that. So that is a specific tie to his – to his campaign.”

Days before the election, Trump vowed if successful to “cancel billions in global warming payments to the United Nations,” saying he would devote funds instead to “environmental infrastructure” at home.

His proposed FY 2018 budget eliminates funding for the Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) and for U.N. climate programs, cutting all funding for the GCF and two precursor climate investment funds.

Last year the Obama administration requested $1.3 billion for the GCCI for FY 2017. The breakdown was $352.2 million for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), $631.7 million for the State Department and $350.4 million for the Treasury Department.

Those figures included $750 million for the GCF –  $500 million from the State Department account and $250 million from Treasury..

President Obama earlier unilaterally pledged $3 billion over four years to the GCF, an entity designed to help developing countries reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapt to phenomena blamed on climate change such as rising sea-levels and drought.

A first instalment of $500 million was paid in March 2016, and a second instalment, also $500 million, just three days before Trump’s inauguration in January.

Republican critics of the U.N. climate efforts were furious, with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) saying the payment to what he called a “slush fund” was “an insult to American taxpayers.”

There was no immediate response Thursday to the proposed finding elimination from Barrasso, but a spokesman for the EPW majority said, “When the committee receives the details of the budget from the administration, it will evaluate the president’s priorities in the context of congressional priorities.”

In keeping with Trump’s pledge to defund U.N. climate change programs, also in the crosshairs is the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), whose Paris climate agreement in 2015 was touted as a major policy success by the Obama administration and especially then-Secretary of State John Kerry.

Obama’s FY 2017 request had included $13 million to go directly to the UNFCCC (apart from hundreds of millions going through the GCCI towards implementation of its Paris agreement, by helping countries to reduce their GHG emissions and improve their CO2 accounting practices).

Paris Climate Accord to Take Effect; Obama Hails 'Historic Day'

October 5, 2016

Reuters - A global agreement to combat climate change will take force after support from European nations sent the accord across an important threshold on Wednesday, prompting U.S. President Barack Obama to hail it as a "historic day" for protecting the planet.

European nations raised backing for the 2015 Paris Agreement to countries representing 56.75 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions, above the 55 percent needed for implementation, a United Nations website showed.

The deal will formally start in 30 days on Nov. 4, four days before the U.S. presidential election in which Republican Donald Trump opposes the accord and Democrat Hillary Clinton strongly supports it.

China and the United States joined up last month in a joint step by the world's top emitters.

Obama called Wednesday "a historic day in the fight to protect our planet for future generations" and he told reporters on the White House Rose Garden:

"If we follow through on the commitments that this Paris agreement embodies, history may well judge it as a turning point for our planet."

Germany, France, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia and Malta - European Union nations which have completed domestic ratification and account for about four percent of emissions - formally signed up on Wednesday.

In total, 72 countries out of 195 have ratified the agreement, according to the U.N. website.

"Great job!" tweeted European Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete.

The Europeans brought forward a formal submission of documents to the United Nations from a ceremony planned on Friday, fearing that other nations might ratify and trigger entry into force without them.

"We didn't want to be upstaged," an EU diplomat said.

Many praised the rapid ratification of an agreement meant to cut global greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, to limit floods, droughts, more powerful storms and rising ocean levels.

"What once seemed unthinkable is now unstoppable," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement.

But all said more work was needed.

"It is no exaggeration to say we are in a race against time," said Thoriq Ibrahim, Environment Minister for the Maldives and Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States which fears the impact of rising sea levels.

By contrast, it took eight years for the previous U.N. climate deal, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, to gain enough backing to take effect. It obliged only rich nations to cut emissions and the United States stayed out of it.

Opposition continues in the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress to Democrat Obama's climate change policies.

"The Paris climate deal would be disastrous for the American economy," said House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, a Republican.

By contrast, Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever and Chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, said ratification showed that a shift to a low-carbon economy is "urgent, inevitable, and accelerating faster than we ever believed possible".

Hillary Clinton is the DNC's New Messiah, Booing the Creator, God Almighty

Democrats heckle preacher during opening prayer

July 26, 2016

Todd Starnes - Monday night in Philadelphia the Democrats opened their proceedings with a word of prayer -- from a Christian minister. Now that in and of itself was a miracle -- right up there with the water getting turned into wine.

But when the preacher offered a blessing upon Hillary Clinton, all you-know-what broke loose.

“We have an opportunity, oh God, to give undeniable evidence to our commitment to justice and equality by nominating Hillary Rodham Clinton as our candidate for the highest office in the land, Rev. Cynthia Hale prayed.

They literally heckled the poor lady – booing and jeering right in the middle of her petition to the Almighty. At some point the jeers turned into chants for Bernie Sanders, “Bernie, Bernie…”

To be clear -- they were not chanting the name of Jesus Christ the Savior -- they were chanting the name of Bernie Sanders the socialist.

They turned a moment of quiet meditation and reflection into UFC Fight Night.

Was it too much to assume the Democrats would show a little bit of reverence?

Then again -- I was at their convention in 2012 -- when they not only booed God -- but they tried to vote the Almighty out of their party platform.

That’s not to say the Democrats are not religious.

I personally observed vendors in Charlotte selling Obama prayer shawls and artwork that depicted the president as Jesus Christ.

In other words, the DNC only had room for one deity – but their King of Kings was not the same one we worshipped on Sunday.

I also recall Charlotte being inundated with heavy thunderstorms not too long after their act of public sacrilege. The same thing happened Monday in Philadelphia.

I'm no theologian -- but it sounds like the Almighty might be trying to send a subtle message to the liberals.

So all you Democrats, listen up!

The next time you guys pray -- bow your heads, close your eyes -- and stop acting like a bunch of godforsaken, no-account heathens who don't have the sense God gave a goose.

Climate Change is One of the Greatest Propaganda Campaigns in World History

Stephen Moore: Climate Change 'One of Greatest Propaganda Campaigns in World History’--'Very Stalinistic'

June 9, 2016

CNS NEWS - Commenting on the Obama administration’s high-pressure offensive to address global warming, leading economist and author Stephen Moore said it is “amazing” because this “dingbat idea of global climate change” is “one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in world history” executed by the political left.

During a June 3 radio interview on the nationally syndicated Janet Mefferd Today show, Moore, the founder of the Club for Growth and a former Wall Street Journal editorial board member, said, “It’s really amazing, I have to say. I have to tip my hat to the left: This has been one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in world history that the left has pulled off.”

“I mean, they’ve taken this dingbat idea of global climate change and they’ve put it in the schools, they’ve put it in the movies, they’ve put it in the media and the churches — you know, I’m Catholic, even the Pope talks about climate change,” said Moore, co-author of Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy.

“So, it’s very alarming how this propaganda campaign, that they made this stuff out of, almost completely out of thin air, and they’ve convinced millions and millions of thought leaders that this stuff is real,” said Moore, who is the Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Project for Economic Growth.

Host Janet Mefferd then said,

“And when you look at some of the statements of people at the U.N., for example – I’m just thinking of this off the top of my head -- they have no problems with things like population control. They don’t have any problem with that. So, you might make the leap in logic that if people were harmed and/or starved to death, eh, would they [climate change activists] really mind because it’s betterment of the planet, I suppose?”

Carbon Taxes Will Help Fund World Government: Emission-cut Pledges to Cost $1 Trillion a Year

"Carbon taxes can raise substantial amounts of government revenue, are a highly practical extension of existing administration for fuel taxes, and can be in countries’ own national interests due to domestic health and other co-benefits. Emissions prices can be aligned with mitigation pledges. Cap-and-trade systems are another option, but generally they should be designed to look like taxes through revenue-raising and price stability provisions." - International Monetary Fund

CO2 is a normal part of the carbon cycle and is essential to all life on earth.

It's not global warning, it's climate change stupid! The fact DC has more snow than last year is proof of climate change! I bet next year will be less snow and there you have it -- climate change again.  Climate change is real, and it's time to turn over our economy and our freedom to elites and "authorities" to manage our lives from birth to death. Once we accept this we can all hold hands and sing "we are the world". On a serious note, climate change is perfect for the ruling class. Unlike global warming or cooling, it is a hypothesis that can never be rejected and, as such, is a tautology that can always be used to support the collective over the individual.

They want to condemn the poor of the world (and the middle class) to government controlled subsistence living, and their attack on fossil fuels is the means. 

All evidence points to climate change, a fact of life, as being a political exercise with little to nothing to do with science. We might as well accept that the subject is just the handiest one available for elitists/statists to push their agenda that leads to worldwide equality––a dystopia for everyone and a return to the Stone Age. It is long past time to put away all pretenses of what the debate is really about. At its core, it is about statism against humanity.

The people who believe in AGW will not be swayed by data, and for them the debate is over. For those of us willing to look at data, we know that science is never settled and every hypothesis must be supported by observation and the data. After all is said and done, AGW is only a theory supported by computer algorithms but not by data. The current warming trend is modest, has plateaued since 1998, and is most consistent with historical patterns in climate changes predating industrial CO2 production. AGW appears to be a religion more than a science, and though I don't wish to disparage another person's religion, I don't wish to put my money into the collection basket.

The Paris climate talks consisted of a bunch of bureaucrats and NGOs figuring out how keep to themselves in the ruling class.  You're either at the table or on the menu, as they say.  We've been had (but whether it is for breakfast, lunch, or dinner, we don't yet know!).

How does a carbon tax impact other businesses and individuals? Companies and individuals pay higher prices for GHG-intensive energy (and other goods and services) as the costs of a carbon tax are passed down to consumers. The extent to which these higher energy prices impact the overall income of companies and individuals depends on how the tax revenues are used. The overall impact on a company also depends on how much fossil fuel-based energy it uses, how higher energy prices affect their business, and a company’s ability to either minimize or avoid increasing costs (e.g., by using fuel more efficiently or using cleaner fuels) and/or pass along costs to its customers. For example, a carbon tax policy might lessen overall economic impacts on consumers by including provisions to make the carbon tax “revenue neutral.” This involves returning the carbon tax revenues to businesses and individuals through rebates or changes in the tax code (e.g., reducing corporate or capital gains taxes). A carbon tax policy might also direct revenues to fund programs that provide longer-term benefits to consumers and businesses, such as research and development programs or transportation infrastructure.

What is debatable, and always should be, is what accounts for the fluctuations in climate that have existed for millions of year.  One year it may be shifts in solar output, another changes in the earth's orbit, another volcanic activity, another earthquakes and shifts in the earth's crust and yet another year it may be several of these together. Everything that is happening now has happened before and with equal suddenness.  Our planet is effected by many forces that have nothing to do with humans.  Climate change ideology or "warmism" has taken on many of the characteristics of an apocalyptic doomsday cult. It's similar to a primitive tribe imagining that an eclipse is a sign from the gods to obey their witch doctors, or that sacrificing virgins will make the local volcano stop erupting. We could regiment our lifestyle, surrender to the climate ideological elite, and begin executing skeptics and "denialists," as other totalitarian cults have done -- and climate will still change.

There probably isn't a serious climate scientist in the world who thinks that climate is well understood and that the science is settled in any final sense. The term "settled", enormously abused by politicians and the media, refers to the fact that virtually no real scientist believes that human CO2 emissions have no effect on climate. It is "settled" science to acknowledge humans influence climate, the degree to which we have an impact is hotly debated within the field. Another poster herein has said it better than I will, but it is time for the right wing to acknowledge that AGW is real--to some degree--so they can have a seat at the table to discuss policy.

Here is my issue with climate change alarmists:  Look, I get it that we need to protect the earth, its resources and the environment. I breath the same air and drink the same water as you guys do. I REALLY like going out to the wilderness and seeing wild animals frolic and clear streams flowing. But when I hear that some theory is SETTLED and that debate is no longer considered politically correct, and that "deniers" should be prosecuted as Bernie Sanders wants to happen... then suddenly I get the whiff tyranny in the air. I get the same feeling that book reading intellectuals got when the Red Brigades went around in Communist China making sure that an dissent was snuffed out and people were "re-educated". You KNOW you guys are doing that don't you?  You are stifling dissent on a subject that is FAR from settled.  Your militant authoritarianism isn't reassuring at all.  It makes me want to oppose you, even if your ideas may have merit.  You guys really need to look again at your methods. We really need to protect the Earth....and make sure those that told us we need to protect the Earth get RICH for doing so! I can show you the news reports of a lawyer hired by Green groups to do NOTHING but make editorial changes to Wiki articles on warming.  In the Summer before he got caught, he made 150,000 changes to wiki articles, all geared towards deleting anything that refuted warming fears. Wikipedia is good on settled FACTS!  Things that are still up for debate -- it is a terrible source!

Global Warming Zealot Pope Francis (the False Prophet) is a Member of the Jesuit Society, a Secret Military Organization Which Has Instigated Most of the Wars in Europe

All the ‘intelligence’ agencies -- CIA, Mossad, MI6, ISI, etc. -- are all connected with the secret societies in an unholy, strangely-knotted alliance.

America and the West are clearly nervous about the Vatican’s overtures to the Moscow-Bejing axis and the alleged transfer of millions of Vatican Bank Euros into the new Asian Investment Bank, which hopes to rival the IMF for global financial supremacy. Ever the consummate Jesuit politician, Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis), knows how to play both sides of the Great Game by feigning loyalty to each faction. All of his words, and his managerial instinct to play to the crowd, need to be appreciated in that light. Despite what people may hear or want, there is no great reform movement underway in the Vatican; on the contrary, Pope Francis has challenged none of the standing Vatican policies. In truth, what his regime is doing is taking sides in the new global cold war by realigning the Roman Catholic Church towards the Eastern power bloc and influencing America to do the same. After all, three quarters of Catholics are in the third world now, and coming from there himself, Jorge Bergoglio knows that the old supreme Imperium of Western Europe and America is on the wane. Official America must realize its twilight condition as well, election-time rhetoric notwithstanding, considering the abject prostitution of both Democrats and Republicans to the Fixer from Rome. [Source]

On March 13, 2013, the Catholic cardinals elected a new pope after just two days of deliberations, selecting 76-year-old Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio on the fifth vote. He has taken the name of Francis and was not considered to be one of the front runners. He is the first Jesuit pope and the first non-European pope since the 8th century. It has been 1,272 years since a non-European pope led the Church, and is particularly appropriate today, as the number of Catholics have declined in Europe, but grown significantly throughout Latin America. It is now home to 41 percent of Catholics and is “perceived as a Catholic bedrock that needs support to counter the tremendous growth of Protestantism.” Latin America is also home to a replica of Solomon's Temple, which was inaugurated in Brazil on July 31, 2014.

Pope Francis calls global warming a major threat to life on the planet, says it is due mainly to human activity, and describes the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels as an urgent matter in a rare encyclical, or teaching letter, released on June 18, 2015. In the letter he promotes climate action as a moral imperative. "The encyclical is going to go out to over 1 billion Catholics — that's a way of getting a message across to a segment of society that the scientific community could never do," said an excited Jeff Kiehl with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "I mean it's just unbelievable." Scientists see this year as crucial to the planet's future because of the religious document from Pope Francis. "I'm not a religious person at all," said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climatologist. But he sees faith-based efforts to shift thinking on climate action as very promising. "The pope's encyclical is probably going to have a bigger impact than the Paris negotiations," he said. [Source]

Pope Francis says culture of consumption has led to global warming

June 18, 2015

LA Times - Pope Francis on Thursday called for immediate changes in human behavior to fight global warming and save the environment, saying damage caused by contemporary lifestyles could leave future generations in a world of filth.

In a powerfully worded encyclical, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church chastised those who would deny a human connection to climate change. Francis declared that the planet was indeed growing warmer and that the dangerous trend was due largely to a culture of instant gratification.

Tragically, he said, people have grown increasingly self-obsessed, ever more distant from nature and alarmingly preoccupied with technological novelty.

“Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain,” Francis wrote in the highly anticipated encyclical, or teaching document, released Thursday. “We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth. The pace of consumption, waste and environmental change has so stretched the planet’s capacity that our contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes.”

At a Vatican news conference, Cardinal Peter Turkson, who wrote a draft of the document, said humanity is facing a “crucial challenge” that needs to be addressed through dialogue.

“For Pope Francis it is imperative that practical proposals not be developed in an ideological, superficial or reductionist way,” he said.

Pope Francis' encyclical on climate change

Metropolitan of Pergamon John Zizioulas, representing the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church, said the environmental crisis was also a spiritual problem caused by the rise of individualism and a greed for personal happiness.