Guess who started the whole climate change debate? You guessed it UK PM Margaret Thatcher!

What most people fail to remember is history. if you ask most American’s who began the entire debate on climate change you would probably get the answer former Vice President Al Gore. The truth is today’s “environmentalist” or “green” movement began with former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Mrs. Thatcher was influenced in great part by environmentalist Sir Crispin Tickell, UK’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 1987-90.

On September 27, 1988 in a speech to the Royal Society, the independent scientific academy of the UK and the British Commonwealth, Mrs. Thatcher stated:

For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world’s systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.

Recently three changes in atmospheric chemistry have become familiar subjects of concern. The first is the increase in the greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons—which has led some [end p4] to fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability. We are told that a warming effect of 1°C per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope. Such warming could cause accelerated melting of glacial ice and a consequent increase in the sea level of several feet over the next century. This was brought home to me at the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver last year when the President of the Maldive Islands reminded us that the highest part of the Maldives is only six feet above sea level. The population is 177,000. It is noteworthy that the five warmest years in a century of records have all been in the 1980s—though we may not have seen much evidence in Britain! [Emphasis added]

Read Mrs. Thatcher’s entire speech.

Mrs. Thatcher then gave a speech on November 8, 1989 to the United Nations General Assembly on the “Global Environment.” Mrs. Thatcher noted:

We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.

At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.

Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones. [end p3]

The consequences of this become clearer when one remembers that tropical forests fix more than ten times as much carbon as do forests in the temperate zones.

We now know, too, that great damage is being done to the Ozone Layer by the production of halons and chlorofluorocarbons. But at least we have recognised that reducing and eventually stopping the emission of CFCs is one positive thing we can do about the menacing accumulation of greenhouse gases.

It is of course true that none of us would be here but for the greenhouse effect. It gives us the moist atmosphere which sustains life on earth. We need the greenhouse effect—but only in the right proportions.

More than anything, our environment is threatened by the sheer numbers of people and the plants and animals which go with them. When I was born the world’s population was some 2 billion people. My [Michael Thatcher] grandson will grow up in a world of more than 6 billion people.

Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people, and their activities: The land they cultivate ever more intensively; The forests they cut down and burn; The mountain sides they lay bare; The fossil fuels they burn; The rivers and the seas they pollute.

The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world’s climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all.

That prospect is a new factor in human affairs. It is comparable in its implications to the discovery of how to split the atom. Indeed, its results could be even more far-reaching.

The intent of Mrs. Thatcher’s speeches was to push for an alternative means of energy – nuclear power.

How it All Went Bad

Margaret Thatcher wanted to reduce the UK’s dependence on Middle Easter oil after the oil shock of 1978-79. According to Laurel Graefe, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta:

Like its 1973–74 predecessor, the second oil shock of the 1970s was associated with events in the Middle East, but it was also driven by strong global oil demand. The Iranian Revolution began in early 1978 and ended a year later, when the royal reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi collapsed and Sheikh Khomeini took control as grand ayatollah of the Islamic republic. In conjunction with the revolution, Iranian oil output declined by 4.8 million barrels per day (7 percent of world production at the time) by January 1979. However, this supply disruption may not have been the most important factor pushing oil prices higher. Rather, the Iranian disruption may have prompted a fear of further disruptions and spurred widespread speculative hoarding.

Oil prices began to rise rapidly in mid-1979, more than doubling between April 1979 and April 1980. According to one estimate, surging oil demand—coming both from a booming global economy and a sharp increase in precautionary demand—was responsible for much of the increase in the cost of oil during the crisis.

Mrs. Thatcher wanted to shift the world toward nuclear power. Her efforts failed due to the 1979 Three Mile Island and the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant incidents. While Mrs. Thatcher’s nuclear power efforts failed the “green” movement in Great Britain exploded.

Nuclear power became the problem and not the solution to many.

In 1998 the United Nations first introduced the “Kyoto Protocol.”

Along Comes Al Gore

Between 1980 and 2006 the green movement was quietly but increasingly gaining political clout. The breakout came when former Vice President Al Gore released his film “Inconvenient Truth” on May 24, 2006. From this point on global warming and climate change became an issue of those seeking to control the means of producing oil, natural gas and coal. The alternative no longer was clean energy via nuclear power. Rather clean energy was anything but nuclear and fossil fuel driven power. It became solar and wind power, heavily subsidized by governments globally.

Along Comes Donald J. Trump

On June 1, 2017 President Trump formally removed the United States from the Kyoto Protocol. In a Rose Garden event President Trump stated:

Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord — (applause) — thank you, thank you — but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.  So we’re getting out.  But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair.  And if we can, that’s great.  And if we can’t, that’s fine.  (Applause.)

As President, I can put no other consideration before the wellbeing of American citizens.  The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers — who I love — and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.

Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.  This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.

Read the full statement here.

It was the conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who started all of this climate change discussion. It was President Trump who ended it for the United States of America. Now you know the real story.

Two Videos on the Global Warming/Climate Change Hoaxes

1. ET sent in a link to a video about a Nobel prize laureate smashing the global warming hoax for what it is. The video, unsurprisingly, is unavailable already on YouTube. While searching for it, I did find this one of Freeman Dyson on the subject. Look in to who Dr. Dyson is. I think as credentials go, he meets the toughest standard.

M. May have found the video featuring Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever in question here:

How The Climate Media Subverts The Climate Debate

There is not a worse enemy of rightly understanding climate change, the causes, the threat and the cost-benefit of remediations than virtually every single media member that covers climate change.

They are part of the ongoing saga of environmental reporters who are as hardened and unobjective in their views as the Sierra Club and GreenPeace. I worked with several in newspapers over the years, and even back in the 1990s they almost universally became as activist in their reporting as the activists were in their activism. The cause was righteous and just!

It resulted in enormous misinformation and of course added to the mountain of distrust for the media that was growing skyward before social media was even on the scene. The global cooling crisis. The acid rain crisis. The nuclear energy crisis. The global deforestation crisis. The population bomb crisis. And on and on.

But nowhere has this been more disastrous than in the climate propaganda that passes itself off as news coverage. This was made crystal clear by the throng in the media center covering the Paris Climate Accord that jumped up and down cheering when it was signed in April 2016. Literally jumped up and down.

As a former member of the press corps, I recoiled at this outburst. But you should totally trust that you’re getting the straight dope from them on climate change.

The level of politicized reporting on the issue is how a member of Congress can propose the most childishly absurd Green New Deal and have every major Democratic candidate and much of the Democratic caucus sign on to it. The crisis is so severe that we need to eliminate plane travel in exchange for 19th century train travel and stop eating meat, plus so many more eye-popping proposals.

Of course the actual reality, which you have to dig for and which most Americans and virtually no Democrats access thanks to the climate media, is that climate change is real but the actual impacts are wildly overstated. Wildly, wildly, wildly overstated.

Last year’s U.S. Climate Assessment points this out, but media consumers would never know it. There is a Defcon 1 worst case scenario that results in far worse problems for the future of mankind than are delineated in the global warming issues of rising oceans and greater overall heat. This scenario envisions a nearly 12-degree increase by 2090 — three times the already questionable consensus, which nobody but the extremely extremists are suggesting is likely. It just not impossible.

But even with that scenario, the estimated climate change-caused damage rolls up to $500 billion annually in the U.S. That is an obviously notable amount today, but could be managed with some pain. But the GDP by 2090 will be unimaginably larger than today, meaning that $500 billion becomes very manageable pain point. Yet draconian measures are needed right now! The reality is that given the pace of scientific advancement and innovation, the solvability of global warming related problems is high.

Why? Guess which number was reported and which number was not reported? Yup. A 12-degree global temperature increase followed by the normal sky-is-falling hysteria and demands for radical lifestyle changes. But there was not a mainstream media outfit that reported the actual cost, which granted was buried by the climate change activist scientists, because that would make obvious that there is no looming crisis of any significance requiring the back-breaking policies with which Al Gore to AOC want to crush the world.

Remember how ineffectual those measures would be. The Paris Climate Accords were essentially worthless in impacting the rapid CO2 growth in China and India, but hit the U.S. hard. However, the U.S. accounts for less than 15 percent of global emissions — and falling.

This irresponsible climate media activism is why every Democratic candidate thinks they need some mammoth plan for global warming — even though studies have shown that if the U.S. cut every last carbon emission today it would have a negligible impact on global temperatures 50 years from now.

Nonetheless, even the supposed moderate in the race, Joe Biden, has had to come out with an anti-global warming plan that includes forcing emissions reductions on countries using tariffs — because if Trump uses tariffs to get better trade deals for American workers and companies, then by gosh Biden can use them to assuage the hysteria fevers caused by the infected climate change media.

It’s all just forehead slapping.

The bottom line, unfortunately, is that as bad as the political reporting is — and most every topic is now political it seems — the absolute least reliable is the climate change coverage, even more so than immigration coverage. You simply cannot accept anything you get from mainstream media sources on climate change. It’s a shame. But it’s true. And it means the ability to have any sort of unified understanding of what should be a straightforward issue is impossible.

Donald Trump: America’s Greenest President

America has never been cleaner or greener in the post-industrial revolution era.

This week President Trump made a major speech showcasing the good health of America’s environment and gains made on his watch.

Both are impressive.

Read the full text of the President’s remarksthe full White House fact sheet on the environment, and commentary by CFACT’s Adam Houser at

America has the cleanest air and the best drinking water on record. Overall pollution levels are in decline.

As Adam Houser points out, you’d never know it from reading the press coverage.

The Green movement in America has gone astray.  Left-leaning politicians make futile gestures such as banning plastic bags, water bottles and drinking straws and subsidizing solar panels, electric cars and wind turbines.  None of this improves our environment, and in many circumstances actually hurts it.

In contrast, the Trump Administration has refocused America’s national efforts on genuine conservation work, and this has borne positive results including:

  • EPA has been been able to clean up Superfund sites at the fastest clip since 2005, and is on track to set a record this year.
  • Real steps are being taken to improve forest management and genuinely reduce the risk of wildfires.  All the green toys in the world could never accomplish that.
  • The federal government has come to the aid of the state of Florida to effectively combat red tide and keep Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades clean.
  • Despite alarms about withdrawing from the Paris accord, America is now leading the world on reducing CO2 emissions (if that’s your thing) while also leading the world in energy production.
  • Millions of acres are being opened up to hunting and fishing with wildlife expanding at a rapid clip.

While no means perfect, the Trump Administration is no doubt headed in a positive direction. It seems to recognize, unlike its predecessor under Obama, that man and nature can advance together, not in opposition. In this there is much to celebrate.

Head on over to for full details.

Indoors or out, this is a time of unprecedented well being in America. The summer months also provide us a great time to go outdoors and revel in America’s natural beauty. Unless, that is, you live in one of the broken cities run by the Left, such as Seattle, or San Francisco, where tent cities spring up and human waste clogs the streets.

Bottom line: If you care about sparking water, clean air, lush green spaces, and thriving wildlife, recognize that now is the best time in recent history to be alive.

To the chagrin of Greens everywhere, President Trump may well become our nation’s greenest President.

41 Inconvenient Truths on the “New Energy Economy”

Bill Gates has said that when it comes to understanding energy realities “we need to bring math to the problem.” He’s right.

A week doesn’t pass without a mayor, governor, policymaker or pundit joining the rush to demand, or predict, an energy future that is entirely based on wind/solar and batteries, freed from the “burden” of the hydrocarbons that have fueled societies for centuries. Regardless of one’s opinion about whether, or why, an energy “transformation” is called for, the physics and economics of energy combined with scale realities make it clear that there is no possibility of anything resembling a radically “new energy economy” in the foreseeable future. Bill Gates has said that when it comes to understanding energy realities “we need to bring math to the problem.”

He’s right. So, in my recent Manhattan Institute report, “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking,” I did just that.

Herein, then, is a summary of some of the bottom-line realities from the underlying math. (See the full report for explanations, documentation, and citations.)

1. Hydrocarbons supply over 80 percent of world energy: If all that were in the form of oil, the barrels would line up from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles, and that entire line would grow by the height of the Washington Monument every week.

2. The small two-percentage-point decline in the hydrocarbon share of world energy use entailed over $2 trillion in cumulative global spending on alternatives over that period; solar and wind today supply less than two percent of the global energy.

3. When the world’s four billion poor people increase energy use to just one-third of Europe’s per capita level, global demand rises by an amount equal to twice America’s total consumption.

4. A 100x growth in the number of electric vehicles to 400 million on the roads by 2040 would displace five percent of global oil demand.

5. Renewable energy would have to expand 90-fold to replace global hydrocarbons in two decades. It took a half-century for global petroleum production to expand “only” ten-fold.

6. Replacing U.S. hydrocarbon-based electric generation over the next 30 years would require a construction program building out the grid at a rate 14-fold greater than any time in history.

7. Eliminating hydrocarbons to make U.S. electricity (impossible soon, infeasible for decades) would leave untouched 70 percent of U.S. hydrocarbons use—America uses 16 percent of world energy.

8. Efficiency increases energy demand by making products & services cheaper: since 1990, global energy efficiency improved 33 percent, the economy grew 80 percent and global energy use is up 40 percent.

9. Efficiency increases energy demand: Since 1995, aviation fuel use/passenger-mile is down 70 percent, air traffic rose more than 10-fold, and global aviation fuel use rose over 50 percent.

10. Efficiency increases energy demand: since 1995, energy used per byte is down about 10,000-fold, but global data traffic rose about a million-fold; global electricity used for computing soared.

11. Since 1995, total world energy use rose by 50 percent, an amount equal to adding two entire United States’ worth of demand.

12. For security and reliability, an average of two months of national demand for hydrocarbons are in storage at any time. Today, barely two hours of national electricity demand can be stored in all utility-scale batteries plus all batteries in one million electric cars in America.

13. Batteries produced annually by the Tesla Gigafactory (world’s biggest battery factory) can store three minutes worth of annual U.S. electric demand.

14. To make enough batteries to store two day’s worth of U.S. electricity demand would require 1,000 years of production by the Gigafactory (world’s biggest battery factory).

15. Every $1 billion in aircraft produced leads to some $5 billion in aviation fuel consumed over two decades to operate them. Global spending on new jets is more than $50 billion a year—and rising.

16. Every $1 billion spent on data centers leads to $7 billion in electricity consumed over two decades. Global spending on data centers is more than $100 billion a year—and rising.

17. Over a 30-year period, $1 million worth of utility-scale solar or wind produces 40 million and 55 million kWh respectively: $1 million worth of shale well produces enough natural gas to generate 300 million kWh over 30 years.

18. It costs about the same to build one shale well or two wind turbines: the latter, combined, produces 0.7 barrels of oil (equivalent energy) per hourthe shale rig averages 10 barrels of oil per hour.

19. It costs less than $0.50 to store a barrel of oil, or its equivalent in natural gas, but it costs $200 to store the equivalent energy of a barrel of oil in batteries.

20. Cost models for wind and solar assume, respectively, 41 percent and 29 percent capacity factors (i.e., how often they produce electricity). Real-world data reveal as much as ten percentage points less for both. That translates into $3 million less energy produced than assumed over a 20-year life of a 2-MW $3 million wind turbine.

21. In order to compensate for episodic wind/solar output, U.S. utilities are using oil- and gas-burning reciprocating engines (big cruise-ship-like diesels); three times as many have been added to the grid since 2000 as in the 50 years prior to that.

22. Wind-farm capacity factors have improved at about 0.7 percent per year; this small gain comes mainly from reducing the number of turbines per acre leading to a 50 percent increase in average land used to produce a wind-kilowatt-hour.

23. Over 90 percent of America’s electricity, and 99 percent of the power used in transportation, comes from sources that can easily supply energy to the economy any time the market demands it.

24. Wind and solar machines produce energy an average of 25 percent–30 percent of the time, and only when nature permits. Conventional power plants can operate nearly continuously and are available when needed.

25. The shale revolution collapsed the prices of natural gas & coal, the two fuels that produce 70 percent of U.S. electricity. But electric rates haven’t gone down, rising instead 20 percent since 2008. Direct and indirect subsidies for solar and wind consumed those savings.

26. Politicians and pundits like to invoke “moonshot” language. But transforming the energy economy is not like putting a few people on the moon a few times. It is like putting all of humanity on the moon—permanently.

27. The common cliché: an energy tech disruption will echo the digital tech disruption. But information-producing machines and energy-producing machines involve profoundly different physics; the cliché is sillier than comparing apples to bowling balls.

28. If solar power scaled like computer-tech, a single postage-stamp-size solar array would power the Empire State Building. That only happens in comic books.

29. If batteries scaled like digital tech, a battery the size of a book, costing three cents, could power a jetliner to Asia. That only happens in comic books.

30. If combustion engines scaled like computers, a car engine would shrink to the size of an ant and produce a thousand-fold more horsepower; actual ant-sized engines produce 100,000 times less power.

31. No digital-like 10x gains exist for solar tech. Physics limit for solar cells (the Shockley-Queisser limit) is a max conversion of about 33 percent of photons into electrons; commercial cells today are at 26 percent.

32. No digital-like 10x gains exist for wind tech. Physics limit for wind turbines (the Betz limit) is a max capture of 60 percent of energy in moving air; commercial turbines achieve 45 percent.

33. No digital-like 10x gains exist for batteries: maximum theoretical energy in a pound of oil is 1,500 percent greater than max theoretical energy in the best pound of battery chemicals.

34. About 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent of one pound of hydrocarbons.

35. At least 100 pounds of materials are mined, moved and processed for every pound of battery fabricated.

36. Storing the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil, which weighs 300 pounds, requires 20,000 pounds of Tesla batteries ($200,000 worth).

37. Carrying the energy equivalent of the aviation fuel used by an aircraft flying to Asia would require $60 million worth of Tesla-type batteries weighing five times more than that aircraft.

38. It takes the energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of batteries that can store the energy equivalent of a single barrel of oil.

39. A battery-centric grid and car world means mining gigatons more of the earth to access lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, cobalt, etc.—and using millions of tons of oil and coal both in mining and to fabricate metals and concrete.

40. China dominates global battery production with its grid 70 percent coal-fueled: EVs using Chinese batteries will create more carbon-dioxide than saved by replacing oil-burning engines.

41. One would no more use helicopters for regular trans-Atlantic travel—doable with elaborately expensive logistics—than employ a nuclear reactor to power a train or photovoltaic systems to power a nation.

This article is republished with permission from Economics 21. 


VIDEO: Big Government Is Not the Answer to Climate Change

In the 1970s, Americans were told we were in a global cooling crisis and if something wasn’t done, we’d enter a new ice age.

When that didn’t happen, a few decades later we were told that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend was not reversed by the year 2000.

Despite the consistent failure of these apocalyptic warnings, that hasn’t stopped climate change alarmism.

We’re now being told we only have 12 years to combat climate change, and the solution is to fundamentally dismantle the system of free enterprise. That means Washington controls things like how we produce our energy, what food we eat, and what type of cars we drive.

The question is, even if we believed their alarmist, catastrophic predictions, would their proposals work?

Not according to the climate scientists’ own models. Based on those models, even if the United States cut its carbon dioxide emissions to zero, it would only avert global warming by a few tenths of a degree Celsius—in 80 years.

We would see no noticeable difference in the climate, yet it would come at an enormous cost to the American people.

Climate change is happening, and human activity undoubtedly plays a role, but big-government climate policies are all economic pain, no environmental gain.

After all, the purpose of climate change regulations is to drive energy prices higher so families and businesses use less energy.

Abundant energy sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas have allowed Americans to affordably drive to their jobs, light and heat their homes, and power their refrigerators, computers, and iPhones.

On the other hand, more heavy-handed climate regulations would drive up electricity bills and prices at the pump.

Families would be hurt multiple times over, paying not just more for energy but also more for food, clothing, and health care, as energy is critical for every stage of planting, harvesting, manufacturing, and transporting goods to consumers.

These rising costs would stifle economic growth, one of the most important factors for maintaining a cleaner environment.

As a country’s economy grows, the financial ability of its citizens to take care of the environment grows, too. So creating more economy-killing climate regulations and taxes would not only harm the livelihoods of the American people, it would also harm our ability to protect our environment.

Instead, government should focus on keeping the economy strong by reducing taxes and eliminating regulatory barriers to energy innovation.

For example, some states produce clean, cheap natural gas, but excessive regulations and litigation prevent the construction of pipelines to distribute natural gas to other parts of the country.

Furthermore, competitive electricity markets can give consumers the option to buy 100% renewable power if they like. And fixing a broken regulatory system will allow new, innovative commercial nuclear technologies to get off the ground.

This is how we can ensure affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy. It’s how we can keep our economy growing. And ultimately, it’s how we can ensure a cleaner environment for America.


Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: How the Trump Administration Is Reining in the EPA’s Union

RELATED VIDEO: What the Left Gets Wrong About Climate Change | The Daily Signal

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with video is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Energy & Environmental News

For the full version of the latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter, please click here…  To review some of the highlights, see below.

My vote for the two most outstanding articles this cycle: Dr. Judith Curry: Climate Scientists’ Motivated Reasoning and What I Learned on My Undercover Mission Among the Greenies.

Regarding the current Newsletter, since there is such a diversity of interesting material, I’m subdividing the most noteworthy articles into five categories. Note that this issue has a special section on the atrocious new NYS “Energy” Policy…

Energy Economics —

Study: The Levelized Cost of Electricity from Existing Generation Resources

Energy Misc —

Energy: NY’s Green Manifesto —

Global Warming (AGW) —

Misc (Education, Science, Politics, etc.) —

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a computer. We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize issues.

Note 2: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 3: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, The most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 4: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

Copyright © 2019; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see

Goodbye to Obama’s “Clean” Power Plan

The Obama presidency was an era of bureaucratic overreach.

No bureaucratic agency was more arrogant, or heedless of its legal boundaries than EPA.  No Obama regulation would have been more ruinous than the so-called “Clean” Power Plan.  The “CPP” was so egregious that the Supreme Court put it on hold.  Good thing.

This week Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced that EPA is scrapping the CPP.

This is big.

CFACT has been been exposing and fighting this destructive plan since its inception.

EPA devised its authority for the CPP by converting 80 words in the Clean Air Act into 2,690 pages of regulations and appendices. The unprecedented plan required that utilities return the nation’s overall CO2 emissions almost to 1975 levels, while our population grows by a projected 40 million.

The CPP would have cost a fortune to tax and ratepayers and would have chased still more American manufacturing jobs overseas.

CFACT’s Adam Houser attended the announcement and posted details at

“The Affordable Clean Energy rule — ACE — gives states the regulatory certainty they need to continue to reduce emissions and provide affordable and reliable energy for all Americans…  The contrast between our approach and the Green New Deal, or plans like it, couldn’t be clearer. Rather than Washington telling Americans what type of energy they can use, or how they can travel, or even what they can eat, we are working cooperatively with the states to provide affordable, dependable, and diverse supply of energy that continues to get cleaner and more efficient.”

While the federal government loosens the regulatory screws on our energy economy, state and local governments are moving in the wrong direction.

The New York legislature adopted a whopper.  We posted details at

The New York State Legislature just passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. Gov. Andrew Cuomo is expected to sign the bill into law. This measure contains new mandates for the state to eliminate net carbon emissions in the next thirty years, by 2050, equal to just 15 percent of the 1990 levels. By 2040, just two decades from now, 100 percent of the state’s electricity generation is supposed to come from “renewable” resources, such solar and wind power.

The new law also authorizes numerous state agencies to issue regulations to achieve greenhouse gas emission limits that govern nearly every aspect of the private economy, including energy, health, housing, transportation, agriculture, economic development, and utilities. And, the new climate law also must be considered when agencies issue any permits, contracts, licenses “and other administrative approvals and decisions.”

Climate change policy now governs everything in the state of New York.

New York had better watch out.  Business owners and the middle class are fleeing states like California that impose unaffordable energy and climate policies.  If New York’s not careful Wall Street and the rest of it producers could very well shrug and bid the Empire State adieu.

In short, this week saw a huge step in the right direction at the federal level and a huge step in the wrong direction in New York.

America needs an affordable, abundant energy future.  When energy costs rise, people and businesses vote with their feet.

Policymakers take notice.

INTEL REPORT: Energy News from the Middle East


MBS-Egypt TV talk show host Amru Adeeb, in his show al-hakayya (the story) aired on MBS- Egypt on 15 June, reported that Egypt is becoming an “energy hub for Europe as well as Africa.”

In this context he noted that Egypt has signed a deal to deliver natural gas to Europe, and plans are underway to export electricity directly to Europe.  This project will entail laying underwater cables from Egypt to Cyprus, from Cyprus to Crete, and Crete to Greece from where the energy could be fed to all of Europe.

On the same program, the Egyptian talk show host also reported on friction developing between France, Greece, and Cyprus on one side, and Turkey on the other side, over natural gas wells in Cypriot waters.  France has a deal with Cyprus allowing it to drill for natural as in Cypriot waters (which Greece also supports, as “Big Brother” to Cyprus).  However, as reported previously, Turkey has also started drilling in Cypriot water, and this without permission from the Cypriot government.  France then, recently ordered Turkey to withdraw from Cypriot water.

On 16 June, Erdogan, in a speech to supporters, indicated that the entire Eastern Mediterranean was Turkish territorial waters.  Erdogan then belittled Cyprus as being inconsequential and threatened to use military force to ensure “Turkish rights.”

COMMENT:  Meanwhile, not only is the U.S. completely AWOL on this issue, but it still lusts to sell this #1 state sponsor of terrorism powerful F-35 jets!

Make no mistake about it, Turkey’s annexation of chunks of N.W. Syria and occupation of chunks of N.W. Iraq (all reported earlier), while the U.S. whimpers its approval and the rest of the world looks the other way, has only whetted the appetite of this fascist state to make ever more encroachments on its neighbors’ territories and rights in the same way that Europe’s acquiescence to Hitler’s early belligerence led to WWII.

Turkey’s current ongoing harassments against Greece and its little brother Cyprus needs to be seen in that light, and if the West does not come down hard on Turkey for this, we’ll all be sorry later.

On another matter, on 16 June, Amru Adeeb commented on the UAE’s minister of foreign affairs visiting Egypt to meet with President as-Sisi so as to obtain reassurance on Egypt’s commitment to the defense of the Gulf states.  Adeeb was dismissive of that saying that as-Sisi’s position has always been clear:  “Egypt is totally committed to the defense of its Gulf Allies.  The security of the Gulf states is Egypt’s security.”

COMMENT:  The visit of the UAE FM at this time to obtain Egyptian reassurance should be seen in the context of the rising tensions in the Gulf due to Iran’s increasingly belligerent behavior.

Also, on 16 June, Adeeb commented on a report aired on rival al-jazeera where an Egyptian professor cast dispersion on the four rashideen (the first four Caliphs, called the “rightly guided ones by Muslims).  According to this professor, these four “rashideen” were not the “rightly guided ones” tradition claims, but were in fact spies for the Quraish which the Quraish had embedded into Muhammad’s entourage.

The MBS-Egypt talk show host Adeeb, who is usually rather animated anyway, really went ballistic over this saying it was going to cause fitna (stark disturbances) all throughout the entire Islamic world.  Then he went on the castigate Qatar (which hosts and supports al-jazeera) of not only causing fitna, but of supporting terrorism.

COMMENT:  The so-called “four rightly guided Caliphs” are Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and ‘Ali.  The real problem that Muslims have with these four rashideen is not so much that the four rashideen might have been spies for the Quraish, but that they never existed.

These four Caliphs, according to Islamic mythology, are the ones who engineered the expansion of the early Caliphate after Muhammad’s death, giving the Arab/Islamic empire control over all of the Levant, Egypt, most of North Africa, and most of what was once the Persian empire.

If that were true, one would expect that the contemporary histories of all of those literate countries would have made some mention of this.  After all, we have Egyptian Coptic writings of that era in our museums as well as Syriac-Aramaic histories, Greek-Byzantine histories, Persian histories . . . and yet none of these sources speak a single word of any of these four “rightly-guided ones.”  Oh, they do talk about the Arab and “Saracen” conquests of their lands, but nary a word about these supposedly great historical figures.

That is because they never existed!  The entire “history” of the origin of Islam and its early expansion was back-written decades later, in the very late 7th and early 8th centuries . . . and it is all, or mostly all, fiction.

Therefore, I submit that this interview on al-jazeera by this Egyptian intellectual is exactly the sort of thing needed by the entire Islamic community.   Causing such a ruckus as it did, it might actually lead to increasing numbers of Muslims to begin to question other assumptions “tradition” has foisted upon them.  And, these questionings and discussions are exactly what are needed to begin the process of veering towards a reformation/restructuring of Islam–without which Western Civilization will go the way of the Byzantine and Persian empires.

Also, I think that we need to give Egypt’s President as-Sisi some credit, despite his heavy-handedness against the Muslim Brotherhood and other political opposition, for creating an atmosphere where issues of this sort can be broached by intellectuals and public figures without fear of legal repercussions from the state (though such individuals still have to fear assassination from the Brotherhood’s thugs.

Energy & Environmental News

For the full version of the latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter, please clickhere. To review some of the highlights, see below.

The response to our Net Local Economic Report for wind energy has been very supportive (Outstanding, Amazing, Sensational, Excellent, etc.). Please carefully look it over, and then pass it onto citizens being threatened by that scourge. (Make sure that the revision date is 6/13/19 or later, as updates have been made!)

Our Winning webpage is an outline of what citizens should do to maximize their chance of success in dealing with a proposed wind project. We just added a new link to outline what conscientious local legislators should do in the same scenario.

A serious national security matter is wind energy interference with military operations. Please watch this new short video on that important issue.

My vote for the two most outstanding articles this cycle were both written by international environmental leaders: Michael Shellenberger and Bjorn Borg.

Regarding the current Newsletter, since there is such a diversity of interesting material, I’m subdividing the most noteworthy articles into seven categories…

Energy Economics —

Energy: Rare Earths —

Energy: Green Manifesto —

Energy Misc —

Global Warming (AGW) —

The UN Extinction Report—

Misc (Education, Science, Politics, etc.) —

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone. Some documents (e.g. PDFs) are easier to read on a computer. We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize issues.
Note 2: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.
Note 3: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, The most important page there is the Winning page.
Note 4: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

Library Censors Climate Best Seller

A library has refused to shelve Gregory Wrightstone’s best-selling book Inconvenient Facts — The Science Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know, despite his being one of Northland Public Library’s own local authors!

Have you got your copy yet from the CFACT store?

Bias and censorship in schools, universities and the media have become massive problems.  Apparently libraries are not immune.

Climate censors don’t fear misleading information from climate skeptics.  They fear the straight facts that debunk Team Warming’s own campaign of exaggerations, deceptions and outright lies.

Gordon Tomb edited Wrightstone’s book.  We posted his report at

Apparently in defense of climate orthodoxy, the Northland Public Library of suburban Pittsburgh has banned from its shelves a best-selling book by a nationally recognized local author.

In a May 29 letter to local author Gregory Wrightstone, library executive director Amy Steele said a committee of three librarians had “concluded your book does not meet our standards.”

The book, “Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You To Know,” disputes claims that global warming is largely a man-made phenomenon threatening the health of people and the environment. Asserting that current temperatures are neither unusual nor unprecedented, the book describes carbon dioxide as a “miracle molecule” whose increased levels have benefitted plants and made Earth greener.

The book has received rave reviews from readers, including respected scientists. Sales of the book have skyrocketed in recent months, reaching as high as #10 in overall Amazon sales as recently as March and #1 in sales in five categories.

Imagine a court system where only the prosecution is allowed to present its evidence.  Soviet Russia worked that way.  You can face that kind of “justice” in countries like China or Iran today.

The unimpeded exchange of information is vital to the functioning of a free society.

If the deluge of climate alarm we encounter every day in the media would hold up to critical scrutiny, warming campaigners would have nothing to fear.

It doesn’t.  That terrifies them. That’s why they want to shut Gregory Wrightstone up.

Don’t let them.

RELATED ARTICLE: Debunked: CO2 will not cause a food shortage

Green Energy Costs Navajos Jobs and Cash

Markets are efficient.  Bureaucrats are not.

That reality becomes all too painful when left-wing ideologues use government to control our energy.

The Navajo Nation is bracing for a shocking blow to its well-being.  The largest coal-fired electricity plant in the western United States is scheduled to shut down in December.  That will cost the Navajos 900 quality jobs and blow a $58 million plus hole in their budget.

“Are we ready for the shutdown?” asked delegate Nathaniel Brown at a special council meeting, “I don’t think we are. We stand to lose a lot, our children the future generation.”

The Navajo Nation posted a press release last week calling on its people to tighten their belts.  Read it at

Facing these financial times, we as the Nation’s leaders cannot continue the grandiose spending habits of old. The response to such spending by the people is the 2010 Initiative and it will be used should the need arise. As expressed here we must find a new way to provide services to the people while being mindful of the fiscal trust the people have given us. I trust the Legislative and Judicial Branches will join the Executive Branch in protecting the finances of the Nation and plan for our children’s future while caring for our elders.

After dealing this blow to the Navajo economy and the West’s power grid, global warming campaigners are offering their same-old solution: they’ll make it all better with solar.  Sounds good, and some of the Navajo have bought in.  Wait until the long-term realities of intermittent solar kick in.  The grid will be weaker and unreliable, and the jobs won’t be coming back.  The Navajos are looking to federal funds to keep them going.

Meanwhile CFACT senior policy analyst Bonner Cohen reports at that Texas’ Navarro College said no to a planned solar farm once they did the tough math and realized that the project would have showered funds on the developer, while giving the college next to nothing.  “During the discussion on the company’s request, Board Member Todd McGraw said he had never seen a company ask for tax abatements when its project would create only two full-time jobs.”

Left-wing policies sound good during the sales pitch.  All too often it takes years for the damage to take its toll.  Navarro College figured it out in time.  Will the Navajo?

Global warming policies don’t alter the temperature of the Earth, but they do hurt people and communities, including Native Americans.

RELATED ARTICLE: Coal plant closure to cost Navajos tens of millions and 900 good jobs

PODCAST: Carbon Tax Scam, Politics of Virginia Beach Shooting and Benghazi Stand Down Exposed!


Jordan McGillis is a Policy Analyst at the Institute for Energy Research. In his role, McGillis writes on energy policy and contributes to IER’s communications initiatives.
McGillis graduated with a B.A. from the University of South Florida and an M.A. from Seton Hall University, both in International Affairs. Areas of focus: Federal Lands (permitting, drilling rights,ect.), Carbon Tax & Climate Change, Free Market Theory.

TOPIC..Carbon Tax Scam!

Alan Gottlieb is a strong advocate of defense. A nuclear engineering graduate of the University of Tennessee, publisher of Gun Week, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, and serves on the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union.

TOPIC…Virginia Governor Pushes Gun Control After Virginia Beach Shooting!

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, West Point Graduate, Founder of “Stand up America” and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations under President Reagan and retired as Deputy Commanding General for the US Army Pacific. Now a guest military analyst for TV and radio and co-author of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror”.

TOPIC…Exposed!! Benghazi Stand Down!

BREAKING: 1.4 Million Acres of Public Land Opened for Hunters, Anglers [Video]

U.S. Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt joins Cam to announce newly opened areas for hunters and fishers. Originally aired on Cam & Co 06/05/2019.


Guy Relford: Coward From Broward Arrested for Fatal Neglect

Sean Maloney: Violent Crime in Cincinnati

Stephen Halbrook: Salesforce Bans Customers Who Sell AR-15s

Canada’s Peoples Party: ‘Climate change alarmism is based on flawed models that have consistently failed at correctly predicting the future.’

The People’s Party of Canada has taken a stand to put science back into public policy on global warming/climate change. According to the People’s Party of Canada website:

The policy debate about global warming is not grounded on science anymore. It has been hijacked by proponents of big government who are using crude propaganda techniques to impose their views. They publicly ridicule and harass anyone who expresses doubt. They make exaggerated claims to scare people. They even manipulate school children, getting them to pressure their parents and to demonstrate in the streets.

We see that the hijacking by “proponents of big government” has found a home in the Democratic Party with the introduction of the Green New Deal.

The People’s Party of Canada presents these Facts:

Climate change alarmism is based on flawed models that have consistently failed at correctly predicting the future. None of the cataclysmic predictions that have been made about the climate since the 1970s have come true. No new ice age. No steady warming in direct relation with increases in CO2 levels. No disappearance of polar ice caps. No exceptional rise in ocean levels. No abnormal increase in catastrophic weather events. No widespread crop failure and famine.

In fact, CO2 is beneficial for agriculture and there has recently been a measurable “greening” of the world in part thanks to higher levels. Despite what global warming propaganda claims, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an essential ingredient for life on Earth and needed for plant growth.

Public policies that the People’s Party have take include:

A People’s Party government will:

  • Withdraw from the Paris Accord and abandon unrealistic greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
  • Stop sending billions of dollars to developing countries to help them reduce their emissions.
  • Abolish the Liberal government’s carbon tax and leave it to provincial governments to adopt programs to reduce emissions if they want to.
  • Abolish subsidies for green technology and let private players develop profitable and efficient alternatives.
  • Invest in mitigation strategies if problems arise as a result of any natural climate change.
  • Prioritize implementing practical solutions to make Canada’s air, water and soil cleaner, including bringing clean drinking water to remote First Nations communities.

These policy positions mirror those taken by President Trump and his administration.

Watch this video titled “Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery” to learn more.

For more documentation on the fraud of anthropocentric climate change, read “‘Global Warming’ Scare Is Population Reduction, Not Science.”

RELATED ARTICLE: There Is No Evidence Weather Is Increasingly Threatening to Human Lives