Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL District 16) lists on his Congressional website the Ocean Champions Congressional Champion award.
Who is Ocean Champions?
According to its website:
Ocean Champions is a 501(c)(4) organization with a connected political action committee – the first national organization of its kind focused solely on oceans and ocean wildlife. Our goal is to create a political environment where protecting and restoring the oceans is a national government priority. By helping to elect pro-ocean Congressional candidates and engaging with Congress to pass pro-ocean laws and shoot down bills that would harm the ocean.
What does Ocean Champions mean by having a goal to “create a political environment where protecting and restoring the oceans is a national government priority” and to “pass pro-ocean laws and shoot down bills that would harm the ocean?”
Under the Obama administration this meant implementation of the National Ocean Policy on July 19, 2010, known as “Ocean Zoning.” This policy was fully supported by Ocean Champions and twelve other environment groups.
Restrictive national standards, along with ocean zoning, could slow and potentially stop the permitting of activities such as commercial and recreational fishing and energy production.This will harm the economy and cost jobs.
Both Rep. Buchanan and Ocean Champions are against off shore drilling.
The Big Lie
On his Congressional website Rep. Buchanan has the following policy position under Jobs & Economy:
We need to cut bureaucratic red tape to give businesses the flexibility they need to expand and create jobs.
The Global Energy Institute (GEI) produces an annual report on the cost of electricity by state. Florida does not allow drilling off of its shore lines. Florida’s cost of electricity per kilowatt hour during the past five years according to GEI are:
YEAR U.S. AVG FLORIDA AVG
2013 10.08 10.30 cents
2014 10.13 10.86 cents
2015 10.42 10.64 cents
2016 10.28 10.13 cents
2017 10.54 10.65 cents
Texas and Louisiana both drill off of their Gulf of Mexico shore lines. Here are the average costs per kilowatt hour for these two states over the same five years according to the GEI:
YEAR TEXAS LOUISIANA
2013 8.77 8.00 cents
2014 8.99 8.11 cents
2015 8.63 7.64 cents
2016 8.28 7.41 cents
2017 8.55 7.75 cents
The Cost to Floridians
Florida’s major industries are dependent on cheap and reliable electricity. Tourism, commercial and recreational fishing, agriculture, healthcare, restaurant, wholesale and retail all need electricity to operate. The higher the cost per kilowatt hour the lower the profits of Florida based companies and the fewer jobs.
Representative Buchanan does not want drilling, even of an exploratory nature, off of Florida’s shorelines. When President Trump lifted the Obama ban on offshore drilling Rep. Buchanan released the following statement in opposition to the Trump administration’s plan to expand offshore drilling operations off the coast of Florida, including the Eastern Gulf of Mexico:
“The Trump administration’s plan to expand oil drilling off Florida’s coastlines is reckless, misguided and potentially catastrophic to Florida,” Buchanan said. “As the state with the longest coastlines in the continental United States, Florida is especially vulnerable to oil spills. Have we forgotten so soon the devastating damage caused by the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010? Our economy, environment and way of life is at stake if restrictions on oil drilling are lifted.”
Rep. Buchanan is correct when he said “our economy and way of life” are at stake. His policy position will put both at great risk.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Vern-Buchanana.jpg368640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-03-29 18:54:382018-03-29 19:30:07Environmentalists Reward Rep. Buchanan while Floridians Pay High Energy Costs
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt may be just a lawyer, but so far he has done more to bring sound science to the EPA than any scientist ever affiliated with the agency.
And, apparently, he’s just getting started.
Since taking the reins at the EPA and despite not having a full complement of presidential appointees helping him—not to mention the 15,000 agency employees, many of whom fancy themselves as part of the “resistance”—Pruitt has shaken up the EPA’s 47-year-old culture and practice of politically-driven science.
Pruitt’s first move last fall was to reform the agency’s practice of appointing its own university research grantees to its science advisory boards so they would be in position to rubber-stamp agency actions. This practice contravened federal law that requires these boards to be made up of unbiased scientists.
In one example, a 26-member board had 24 EPA grantees who had received more than $200 million in research grants from the agency. These scientists were “reviewing” either their own research or the research of their colleagues. It was pal review, not peer review.
So, Pruitt changed the EPA’s policy. Researchers now must choose whether they want to receive research grants from the EPA or serve on its advisory boards. But they can’t do both.
Pruitt also appointed new members to some of these boards. For the first time in at least 20 years, individuals were appointed who are prominent critics of how the EPA uses science—including the chairmen of the two most important science advisory boards.
Pruitt rightly recognizes these boards are advisory in nature and he is not bound to accept their advice. As such, Pruitt should be commended for wanting to get different points of view from the members of his advisory boards. In contrast, the Obama EPA boards were largely just echo chambers of a single point of view.
Just last week, Pruitt announced another giant leap toward improving how the EPA uses science. Pruitt says he will ban the use of so-called “secret science” from agency rule-makings.
Over the past 20 years, for example, the most costly EPA air quality regulations have been based on scientific data in taxpayer-funded studies that Harvard and Brigham Young University researchers have literally kept secret for decades.
In 1994, an EPA external science advisory board known as the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee asked for the data, but the request was ignored by the agency. In 1997, Congress requested the data and was outright refused.
In 1998, Congress passed a law requiring that scientific data relied on by the agency must be made available to the public. But an appellate court held the law unenforceable in 1998.
In 2011, Congress again began politely asking the EPA for the data. No luck. So, in 2013, Congress issued its first subpoena in 30 years to force the EPA to produce the data. Again, no luck.
The House then began passing bills—three of them in successive sessions of Congress—to bar the EPA from relying on secret data to issue regulations. But all got stuck in the Senate, including the current bill known as the HONEST Act.
So Pruitt has decided he will take the initiative and ban the use of secret science at the EPA. If agency rules are going to be based on scientific data, that data must be available to independent researchers for validation purposes.
It of course would be better if Congress passed legislation to make this permanent, but Pruitt recognizes the EPA and the public cannot wait on the hopelessly deadlocked legislature.
These are all major accomplishments. But there’s a lot more to do. The good news is that Pruitt is eager. He is rightly focused on how the EPA uses science and his plans for improving the process.
As someone who has worked on EPA science issues and controversies for more than 27 years, it’s all music to my ears.
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.
Before March 31, we are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associates benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
The accuracy of computer models is critical to the entire climate change issue (and thus renewable energy). Two very good videos [below] have been just released that tackle this complex matter: 1) a 4± minute video in the style of PragerU releases, and 2) a 20± minute film designed for a deeper understanding. (BTW, I have the contact info for both filmmakers, so if you have any suggestions for improvements, let me know and I’ll pass them on.)
Computer Models & Fortune Tellers
Better Understanding… Models
Since Russian collusion is a hot topic, I put together an overview document about how the Russians (and Chinese) have an almost identical energy agenda, as do the leaders of some mainstream environmental organizations. Please also note that this Newsletter has several recent articles about Russian interference (see below).
North Carolina has been ground zero for the environmentalist war on fossil fuels. Currently the battle is about offshore gas and oil exploration. To put some balance into this issue, here is a Position Paper that looks at all of the expressed concerns. It’s a living document so periodically check it for updates.
I just updated the list of sample NYS towns, comparing each of their local wind ordinances. No matter where you live, if you are dealing with wind energy, this information should be of interest to you.
Lastly, ABC (American Bird Conservancy — one of the more reasonable environmental organizations) is hiring a person to deal with wind energy. Here is the position in case you know someone who would be interested.
Some recent articles on Russians and energy policies:
PS: 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 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.
PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/awed-environmental-news.jpg348640John Droz, Jr.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Droz, Jr.2018-03-26 12:55:022018-03-26 12:55:02Videos on Climate Computer Models & How Russia and China Have Identical Energy Agendas
Let’s take a look at this in practice. Germany is considered by some to be the best success story in the world of effective solar and wind use, and you’ll often hear that they get a large percentage of their energy from solar and wind.
You can see here on this chart how this claim was made and why it’s not accurate.
First of all, this is just a chart of electricity. Solar and wind are only producing electricity and half of Germany’s energy needs also include fuel and heating. So solar and wind ever contribute half as much to Germany’s energy needs as this chart would imply.
But that’s not the biggest problem. What you notice here is that there’s certain days and times where there are large spikes, but there are also periods where there’s relatively little. What that means is that you can’t rely on solar and wind ever. You always have to have an infrastructure that can produce all of your electricity independent of the solar and wind because you can always go a long period with very little solar and wind.
So then why are the solar and wind necessary? Well, you could argue that they’re not and that adding them onto the grid will impose a lot of costs.
In Germany, electricity prices have more than doubled since 2000 when solar and wind started receiving massive subsidies and favorable regulations, and their electricity prices are three to four times what we would pay in the U.S. (Because of its low reliability, solar, and wind energy options require an alternative backup—one that’s cheap, plentiful, and reliable—to make it work, thus creating a more expensive and inefficient process.)
Nuclear and hydro
Fossil fuels are not the only reliable sources. There are two others that don’t generate CO2 that are significant and are more limited, but still significant contributors. Those are hydroelectric energy and nuclear energy.
Hydroelectric energy can be quite affordable over time, but it’s limited to locations where you have the right physical situation to produce hydroelectric power.
Nuclear is more interesting because nuclear doesn’t have the problems of hydro but it’s been very restricted throughout history so today in the vast majority of cases it’s considerably more expensive than say electricity from natural gas. This may change in the future and one thing we’ll discuss under policy is how we need to have the right policies so that all energy technologies can grow and flourish, if indeed the creators of those technologies can do it.
The reality of energy poverty: a story
To illustrate just how important it is to have cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy, I want to share a story I came across while doing research for my book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. This is a story about a baby born in the very poor country of Gambia.
The baby was born underweight and premature, but not in such a way that would be a big problem in say, the United States. In the United States, the solution would have been obvious: incubation. This technology would almost certainly bring this baby up to be completely healthy, and if you met the baby later in life you would never know that there had ever been a problem.
Unfortunately, in the Gambia, in this particular hospital, they needed something that billions of people in the world do not have, and that is reliable electricity.
Without reliable electricity, the hospital didn’t even contemplate owning an incubator, the one thing this baby desperately needed to survive.
Without access to this technology, the baby could not survive on her own, and sadly, she died. I think this story reminds us of what it means to have access to cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy, and how having more energy gives us the ability to improve our lives.
To summarize what we discussed, if you can’t afford energy you don’t have energy, and if energy is scarce or unreliable, then you don’t have energy when you need it. It’s not just enough to have energy, the energy and the process to create it has to be cheap, plentiful, and reliable.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/energy-clarity.jpg360640Alex Epsteinhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAlex Epstein2018-03-25 08:34:312018-03-25 08:34:31Energy Poverty Kills: How Germany embraced solar and wind and ended up in energy poverty
A few nights ago I recorded a 20 minute analysis [BELOW] of the climate section of the book. You don’t need a copy of the book to follow along since the text of the book is in the video.
I hope you find my analysis useful. I think the principles involved apply to many smart people who get this issue wrong.
Bonus: At the end of the video I defend “the Koch Brothers” from Pinker’s smearing. I haven’t spoken much about them publicly so I was glad to get the opportunity.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/steven-pinker.jpg361640Alex Epsteinhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAlex Epstein2018-03-14 13:36:592018-03-14 13:36:59VIDEO: Steven Pinker’s Un-Enlightened Writing on Climate and Energy
We have long advocated that a Property Value Guarantee (PVG) be included in any local wind ordinance that is serious about protecting the rights of citizens. Not suprisingly, the wind industry is adamantly opposed to a PVG… We were alerted to the fact that Exxon is offering a PVG near one of their fossil fuel facilities! What’s acceptable for fossil fuels should be good enough for wind turbines…
Some of the more informative Global Warming articles in this issue are:
PS: 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 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.
PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Offshore-Cape-Wind-Project-Dead-e1512331351765.jpg393640John Droz, Jr.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Droz, Jr.2018-03-12 06:39:432018-03-12 06:51:57Property Value Guarantee: What’s good for fossil fuels is good for wind turbines
1) U.S. nuclear energy facilities to close down?
2) U.S. fossil fuel reserves to stay in the ground (onshore and offshore)?
3) The costs of fossil fuels to go up (e.g. with a carbon tax)?
4) A high percentage of the US electric grid to be based on unreliable sources?
5) The U.S. to waste trillions of dollars on unreliable electricity?
6) To have our national security weakened by wind energy interference with our military?
If you answered: “the Sierra Club and their allies,” you’d be right. However the correct answer is also our communist opponents: Russia and China.
Consider the fact that when it comes to energy policy, there is an almost identical agenda between these two groups.
U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) on March 1st, 2018 released a staff report uncovering Russia’s extensive efforts to influence U.S. energy markets through divisive and inflammatory posts on social media platforms. The report details Russia’s motives in interfering with U.S. energy markets and influencing domestic energy policy and its manipulation of Americans via social media propaganda. The report includes examples of Russian-propagated social media posts.
Chairman Smith:
“This report reveals that Russian agents created and spread propaganda on U.S. social media platforms in an obvious attempt to influence the U.S. energy market. Russia benefits from stirring up controversy about U.S. energy production. U.S. energy exports to European countries are increasing, which means they will have less reason to rely upon Russia for their energy needs. This, in turn, will reduce Russia’s influence on Europe to Russia’s detriment and Europe’s benefit. That’s why Russian agents attempted to manipulate Americans’ opinions about pipelines, fossil fuels, fracking and climate change. The American people deserve to know if what they see on social media is the creation of a foreign power seeking to undermine our domestic energy policy.”
The report’s key findings:
Between 2015 and 2017, there were an estimated 9,097 Russian posts or tweets regarding U.S. energy policy or a current energy event on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
Between 2015 and 2017, there were an estimated 4,334 IRA accounts across Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
According to information provided by Twitter, more than four percent of all IRA tweets were related to energy or environmental issues, a significant portion of content when compared to the eight percent of IRA tweets that were related to the election in the U.S.
Russia exploited American social media as part of its concerted effort to disrupt U.S. energy markets and influence domestic energy policy.
The IRA targeted pipelines, fossil fuels, climate change and other divisive issues to influence public policy in the U.S.
On October 31, 2017, Chairman Smith sent letters to Twitter and Facebook to continue its probe into Russian attempts to influence U.S. energy markets via social media platforms. The letters cited additional evidence that Russian agents engaged in anti-U.S. energy activities on the platforms, including Facebook-owned Instagram, and reiterated Chairman Smith’s September request for information from the companies.
On September 26, 2017, Chairman Smith requested documents and information from Twitter and Facebook related to Russian entities purchasing anti-U.S. energy advertisements on social media platforms operated by the companies, including Facebook-owned Instagram.
On July 7, 2017, Chairman Smith and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber (R-Texas) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin requesting that the Treasury Department investigate allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. energy market through covertly funding radical environmental groups opposed to fossil fuels.
This book is the ultimate reference guide to climate change and no parent should be without a copy as their kids under climate education at school from elementary through college!
Limbaugh praised Climate Depot’s Morano in 2009: “Morano’s probably single-handedly, in a civilian sense, the guy (other than me, of course) doing a better job of ringing the bells alarming people of what’s going on here.” – November 20, 2009
A sampling of praise and reviews for Marc Morano’s new book:
“With his book “Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change”, Marc Morano vies to be the Thomas Paine of the movement to save the world from the tyranny of climate catastrophists. He exposes the seemingly infinite number of absurd claims, and the almost unbounded hypocrisy and venality of the proponents of this clearly inhuman and scientifically implausible attempt to control mankind by controlling and, more importantly, restricting access to energy. This book is an unrelenting polemic of the best kind.”
— Emeritus MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen
“I have never met Marc Morano, the author of this very interesting book, but I know him well from his excellent blog Climate Depot, which I read regularly. In the book he exposes the climate myths that even scientific organizations like the Physical Society and American Association for the Advancement of Science push. The Earth has existed for maybe 4.5 billion years, and now the alarmists will have us believe that because of the small rise in temperature for roughly 150 years (which, by the way, I believe you cannot really measure) we are doomed unless we stop using fossil fuels. We are now forced to use corn-based ethanol in our gas, subsidized windmills, and solar cells for energy; meanwhile, maybe a billion people worldwide starve and have no access to electricity. You and I breathe out at least thirty tons of CO2 in a normal life span, but neverthelessthe Environmental Protection Agency decided to classify rising carbon-dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health. Marc Morano discusses the reasons and history of all these strange theories in his excellent book The Politically Incorrect Guide ® to Climate Change. Please read it, you will be amazed!” —Dr. IVAR GIAEVER, Nobel Laureate in physics
“Marc Morano’s remarkable book The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change documents, in their own words, how many honest scientists still insist that hypotheses not confirmed by observation should be rejected. It exposes the pernicious myth that 97 percent of scientists agree that increasing levels of carbon dioxide are an existential threat, one that mandates the surrender of human freedom and wellbeing to an ‘enlightened’ climate elite. The book documents that many very distinguished scientists do not agree. In fact, more carbon dioxide is already benefitting the world through increased yields for agriculture and forestry, and from shrinking deserts. The hated ‘deniers’ are right. There is no emergency. When later generations of historians analyze the climate hysteria of our time, this book will be one of their most valuable references.” — Dr. WILL HAPPER, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, emeritus, Princeton University
“The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change is a welcome scientific and rational antidote to the liberal news media, the UN, and Al Gore’s incessant chattering about climate doom. This book exposes the hypocrisy of Learjet limousine liberals who fly in their own private jets and own multiple homes while preaching to the world about downsizing and energy rationing. Every parent in America should be armed with this book to fight the brainwashing of their kids from kindergarten through college. Marc’s book is the ultimate A-Z reference guide that debunks man-made climate change claims using scientific studies and prominent scientists. The Politically Incorrect Guide
® to Climate Change is the book the UN and Al Gore do not want you to read. The climate scare ends with this book.”
— SEAN HANNITY, host of Hannity on Fox News and of the nationally syndicated radio program The Sean Hannity Show
“This book covers the history of climate, from the global cooling ‘coming ice age’ scare of the 70s to the ‘we have just a few years left to save the planet’ that characterizes the current global warming scare. Written in a light reading style, virtually every page is meticulously referenced with sources for the points he makes. Love him or hate him, Morano is very effective in conveying the history and the climate flim-flammery under the guise of science that has been going on the last few decades, mostly thanks to huge government funding of climate science. It reads like a postmortem verification of President Eisenhower’s farewell address, which warned of the ‘military-industrial complex,’ but also said, ‘The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.’”
— ANTHONY WATTS, publisher of WattsUpWithThat, the world’s most viewed climate-themed website
“This book reveals that ‘global warming’ is not and has never been about the ‘science.’ The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change
reveals the agenda behind the lavishly funded and government-sponsored climate change establishment. Morano unmasks the United Nations’ goals of ‘global governance,’ redistribution of wealth, and global carbon taxes. This book arms every citizen with a comprehensive dossier on just how science, economics, and politics have been distorted and corrupted in the name of saving the planet. Contrary to Al Gore’s claims, UN treaties and EPA regulations cannot control the weather or the oceans. A must read.” —MARK LEVIN, author of Men in Black, Liberty and Tyranny, and Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism
Foreword by John Coleman in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change
Don’t worry about “climate change,” says Marc Morano—there is no significant manmade global warming.
Are you kidding me? We all know that the icecaps are melting, the oceans are about to flood our cities, and more and more superstorms are happening. And the experts are certain that mankind’s use of fossil fuels is causing it all. We have all the facts; right?
The truth is that there is a debate about climate change but it has been very one-sided. With the U.S. government, all the scientific organizations, Al Gore, the Science Guy, Hollywood, the Democratic Party, and the United Nations all behind the bad news that our use of fossil fuels is destroying the climate of Earth, anyone on the other side of the debate finds themselves behind the eight ball. Peeking out from behind the eight ball is Marc Morano. In this great book he begins his comprehensive review of the debate about global warming by chatting about the history of climate scares in centuries past—and goes on to decisively debunk the current climate scare. By the time he’s done, you will realize you’ve been hoaxed. Climate change has become a scam.
As the founder of the Weather Channel and a six-decade veteran TV news weatherman, I know a great deal about this topic. We meteorologists are well aware of how limited our ability is to predict the weather. Our predictions become dramatically less reliable as they extend out into the future. When we try to predict just a few weeks into the future our predictions become increasingly inaccurate. Yet the “climate change” establishment that now dominates the UN bureaucracy and our own government science establishment claim that they can predict the temperature of the Earth decades into the future. Their global warming scare is not driven by science; it is now being driven by politics.
So today anybody who defies the prevailing “climate change” scare puts his career and his reputation into extreme danger. That is where we find Marc. He is living life behind the eight ball. He has been there for decades. But whatever you may hear from his enemies in the climate change establishment, he is no crazy denier or shill for Big Oil. The explanation is simple. He is so certain of his data that he is quite comfy there behind the eight ball. When you really study the issue, you realize that Marc Morano is absolutely right. And it turns out he is not alone there behind the eight ball. He has developed relationships with hundreds of brilliant scientists and other experts who are willing to testify, along with Marc, that in fact there is no significant man-made global warming.
This book is exactly what parents need to counter the indoctrination our children are now being subjected to. Starting at a very young age and continuing through their teenage years, American school children are being constantly bombarded with climate change propaganda. This is science gone bad. It has become political. And climate science has been hijacked by the extreme fringe of the environmental movement. The truth is that while climate is naturally changing—as it always has—no crisis is occurring and there is no reason to fear any in the future. This book uses over twelve hundred footnotes to bolster its compelling, scientific, and logical demonstration that Al Gore and the United Nations are dead wrong on climate fears. And maybe even more important, this book uses the climate change establishment’s own words to refute their silly claims.
Read this book and Marc will become your hero. Give it to your friends to read. Maybe in the end there will be enough of us who no longer believe the climate change hoax that he and those of us who know he is right can get out from behind the eight ball and enjoy life. Read on, my friend, read on.
Marc Morano & Rush Limbaugh in 1992 on the set of “Rush Limbaugh, The Television Show”
Amazon verified customer reviews:
“A masterpiece! Couldn’t put it down. They can’t predict next week’s weather but the Hollywood-elites are telling us what the weather will be in ten, fifty or one hundred years? Read this book so you’re armed with facts, figures and real science to fight the pseudo-phony-scientists.” Tony Meyer – February 27, 2018
“Unfortunatel, many Americans have become brain-washed by the media and the media’s deliberate lies. This superb study will inform you. Study and reread this masterpiece carefully. It’s worth its weight in gold.” – Clarence Beeks – February 27, 2018
CFACT barnstormed CPAC, The Conservative Political Action Conference, this weekend with a series of activities that culminated in a light saber duel between “Green Energy” Darth Vader and the “Reliable Energy” Jedi!
“We thought this would get the point across to the crowd pretty easily: That so-called ‘green’ energy that needs subsidies is the bad guy and reliable energy that comes from fossil fuels and nuclear are the good guys,” said Adam Houser. Adam is the director of CFACT’s nationwide network of college chapters.
CPAC has been an important annual gathering of conservatives and libertarians for over 45 years. This year both President Trump and Vice President Pence were there.
“CFACT’s light saber duel was meant to strike a deeper discussion of what type of energy is right for America going forward.” Adam reports at CFACT Campus. “As dozens of students crowded around the duel, and The Opposition, a late-night political satire show on Comedy Central, filmed the fake altercation, it was clear the stunt achieved its intended goal. Students then flocked to CFACT’s booth, where they could take the Energy Challenge to charge their phone and learn more about energy. Vanity Fair,NowThis, and Teen Vogue all stopped at CFACT’s booth to ask questions about energy and take pictures.
‘We gave students the option to charge their phone from a typical outlet, which is powered by fossil fuels, or they could try to go the ‘renewable’ route by blowing on the mini wind turbine or turning the hand crank,’ explained Graham Beduze, CFACT’s Associate Director of Collegians. ‘The vast majority chose conventional energy, although it was hilarious to see some students furiously turning the crank or getting winded trying to generate enough force to charge their phones by blowing on the turbine.'”
CPAC presents an opportunity for CFACT to brief some of the nation’s most effective political activists and send them into the field armed with the facts about energy, the environment and other issues.
CFACT’s team did an outstanding job. We’re proud of them.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/dark-side-of-green.png363638Committee For A Constructive Tomorrowhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCommittee For A Constructive Tomorrow2018-02-27 16:27:502018-03-13 10:27:39The Dark Side of Green
In his first year as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt has already transformed the agency in many ways. He spoke exclusively to The Daily Signal before addressing attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference’s annual Reagan Dinner. An edited transcript of the interview is below.
Rob Bluey: You gave a speech at CPAC last year where you were just at the beginning of your tenure at the Environmental Protection Agency, and you outlined some of the things that you wanted to do. Here we are a year later, you’ve repealed, taken back, 22 regulations at a savings at $1 billion, a significant contribution to the U.S. economy, as President Donald Trump talked about in his speech. What does that mean?
Scott Pruitt: Busy year. And it was great to be at CPAC about two weeks after having been sworn in last year. And I talked last year about the future ain’t what it used to be, that Yogi Berra quote that I cited about the change that was gonna take place at the agency and I think we’ve been about that change the last year. Focusing on rule of law, restoring process and order, making sure that we engage in cooperative federalism as we engage in regulation.
But the key to me is that weaponization of the agency that took place in the Obama administration, where the agency was used to pick winners and losers. Those days are over.
You know, to be in Pennsylvania as I was early in my term, shortly after the CPAC speech last year, and to spend time with miners in Pennsylvania and be able to share with them underground. I was a thousand feet underground and 3 miles in. First time that an administrator in history had done that, and I talked to those long wall miners in Pennsylvania, and delivered the message from the president that the war on coal is over. That was a tremendous message for them, emotion that I saw on their faces.
Can you imagine, in the first instance, an agency of the federal government, a department of the U.S. government, declaring war on a sector of your economy? Where is that in the statute? Where does that authority exist? It doesn’t. And so to restore process and restore commitment to doing things the right way, I think we’ve seen tremendous success this past year.
Bluey: President Trump cited a number of examples that have come out of EPA in his speech to the CPAC attendees, and one of them was coal, another one was the Paris climate treaty. Talk about those two issues and your work with the president in terms of why you decided to take those actions in conjunction with him?
Pruitt: The president’s decision to exit the Paris accord—tremendously courageous. When you look at that decision, it put America first, which is what the president said in the Rose Garden in June.
What was decided in Paris under the past administration was not about carbon reduction. It was about penalties to our own economy because China and India, under that accord, didn’t have to take any steps to reduce CO2 until the year 2030. So, if it’s really about CO2 reduction, why do you let that happen?
“That weaponization of the agency that took place in the Obama administration—where the agency was used to pick winners and losers—those days are over.”
When you look at who’s led the world in CO2 reduction, it’s us. From the year 2000 to 2014, we reduced our CO2 footprint almost 20 percent through innovation and technology. So, we have nothing to be apologetic about as a country, and yet, the past administration went to Paris, hat in hand, and said, “Penalize our economy”, which is what happened with the Clean Power Plan.
The president saying no to that and putting America first was the tremendously courageous and right thing to do. I’m very excited about that decision. I know he talked about that in his speech and it was a wonderful decision he made, and I think great for the American people.
Overall, this regulatory reform agenda—this regulatory certainty that we’re about—is achieving good things for the environment, but it’s also achieving, as you say, good things for our economy. We can do both. And I think that’s what’s key.
President Donald Trump listens to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt after announcing his decision that the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. (Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/Newscom)
Bluey: President Trump certainly cited deregulation as just as significant, I believe he said, as the tax cuts. We’ve seen some of the benefits for many American businesses, and certainly American workers as a result of that.
Pruitt: When you think about an EPA—armed, weaponized, if you will—like a rule like WOTUS, the Waters of the United States rule, that would take a puddle and turn into a lake. To take land use decisions away from farmers and ranchers and landowners across this country, and people think it was just farming and ranching. It was the building of subdivisions. It was really all land use decisions.
I was in Utah last year meeting with some folks there that were building a subdivision, and there was an Army Corps of Engineers representative that was standing outside the subdivision with me, and he pointed to an ephemeral drainage ditch and he said, “Scott, that’s a water of the United States.” And I said, “Well, it’s not gonna be anymore.”
That’s exactly the kind of attitude that drove the past administration. It was all about power. It wasn’t about outcomes necessarily. It was about power and picking winners and losers, and we’re getting that corrected.
Bluey: That’s one thing I want to talk to you about because right now your agency is going across the country. You’re having hearings on the Clean Power Plan. You’re trying to get input from Americans, and not just Americans in Washington, D.C., and the Beltway, but places like Wyoming and Missouri and West Virginia. Why is that important to get out and hear from Americans about how government affects their lives?
Pruitt: Couple things: One, we’ve been to 30-plus states. And as we’ve met with stakeholders, farmers and ranchers, and those in the utility sector and the energy sector, landowners, representatives from the state’s governors, and DEQs from across the country, I think what we didn’t recognize over the last several years with the past administration is that those folks are partners. They care about outcomes.
“We shouldn’t start from the premise that those folks are adversaries or don’t care about clean air or clean water. We should start from the premise that they do, and work with them to achieve good outcomes.”
Think about those farmers and those ranchers. They’re our first conservationists. They’re our first environmentalists. I think of the young man, David, in Florida that I meant about a month ago, 12 years old. I was speaking to a group of individuals in Florida. David was there with his dad and his granddad was there. Now, think about what their greatest asset is? Their land. And they’re teaching David how to cultivate and harvest and care for that land and act as a steward.
That’s the message we’re sending across the country. We shouldn’t start from the premise that those folks are adversaries or don’t care about clean air or clean water. We should start from the premise that they do, and work with them to achieve good outcomes. That’s the difference in how we approach it versus the past administration.
Bluey: That leads to my next question. When we last spoke in October, we talked about what true environmentalism really means, and I’d like you to share again how you’re approaching that.
Pruitt: It’s a very important question because I think when you look at what is true environmentalism, the past administration said prohibition.
Though we have natural gas and oil and coal and all these natural resources that we’re blessed with as a country, they approached it by saying, “Put up fences. Do not touch.” And that’s just simply wrong-headed in my view.
What we should be about is stewardship. Recognizing that God has blessed us with those resources, that we have an obligation to use them responsibly and environmentally stewardship focused with respect to future generations, and we can do that.
This notion that we cannot be about jobs and stewardship of the environment is just simply not right. We’ve always done that well as a country. We haven’t had to choose. The past administration had to choose. Jobs or environmental protection? We’re saying environmental stewardship and jobs in the economy. We can do both together.
Bluey: One of the things I know you’ve been focused on is making the EPA, as an agency, run more efficiently. And you talked to me before about how you brought in a staff that is really committed to doing that. How has that progressed?
Pruitt: It’s exciting. Exciting. I mean permitting is one of those areas that I think is a great representation of that, a great measurement better put.
When you have a permitting processes that take 10, 12, 15 years, that’s not permitting. That’s obstruction. That isn’t an answer. That’s just simply a delay tactic in my view.
We are going through a process right now that, by the end of this year, every decision we make on a permit at the agency will be done within six months, up or down. Now, states do it all the time. States have processes in place where they’re making decisions between six months and a year, and we don’t.
“When you have a permitting processes that take 10, 12, 15 years, that’s not permitting. That’s obstruction.”
We’re getting accountability across the country in regions and in headquarters, and it’s gonna be done by the end of the year.
That’s something that is very exciting to me, but when you think about the core mission of our agency, we’ve done something else that’s very important. We’re setting goals.
We’re saying, “Where do we wanna be air attainment?” Those air quality standards that we have, where do we need to be five years from now? What about Superfund sites? What about water infrastructure? How do we avoid a Flint, Michigan, and a Gold King, Colorado? How do we take the backlog of chemicals? How do we address the state of limitation plans that states have submitted to improve air quality, and work through that backlog?
Let’s set objective measurements and measure them every single day, and challenge everyone to meet those goals. And it’s exciting. And people are really, I think, getting vested and invested in it.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt watches an underground conveyor belt system carrying coal to the surface during a tour of the Harvey Mine in Sycamore, Pennsylvania. Pruitt was visiting the area as part of his Back-to-Basics Agenda promoting coal as a source of energy. (Photo: Eric Vance/ZUMA Press/Newscom)
Bluey: Last fall, you took action on sue and settle. You decided to end that practice. What has that meant in the months since you’ve taken that action?
Pruitt: Well, Rob, you get this, but how damaging was that to rulemaking when the sue and settle practice—a third-party group comes in and sues the agency, goes into a courtroom somewhere in the country, agrees to a substantive rule in the course of that settlement, puts it into consent decree, and then goes all over the country and says, “This is what you have to do across the country.”
Now, that’s abusive. That’s not how the process should work. You should not have a sue and settle process to bypass rulemaking. So, I ended it.
I sent a memo out to the entire agency that said gone are the days of us going into a backroom at a courtroom, and make a decision with one party that affects the entire country.
We’re going to do rulemaking the right way. We’re going to publish our rules. We’re going to take comment on those rules. We’re going to respond to those comments. We’re going to finalize the rules. That’s what Congress has required of us. That’s what we’re going to do. It’s going to make a substantial difference.
“This notion that we cannot be about jobs and stewardship of the environment is just simply not right. … We can do both together.”
One other area that we’ve addressed that I think is equally important is this area of our advisory committees. These scientists that serve on advisory committees that help us do rulemaking because, as you know, when we make a decision, we don’t just snap our finger. We have to build a record. There’s scientific inquiry. There’s evaluation, data, methodology. All of those things take place with water, air, whatever the rulemaking is.
As that record is built, you have advisory committees, you have scientists that advise me as the administrator and the agency as a whole on the efficacy, the merits of that rule. Well, those scientists, we have many scientists that serve on those advisory committees that were also getting grants from the agency that were supposed to be given as independent counsel. In fact, we had several scientists receive almost $77 million over the last three years.
I said to those individuals, “Look, you can receive the grant, but you can’t serve on the advisory committee. Or you can serve on the advisory committee but not receive the grant. Choose this day what you’re going to do.”
We got accountability there to ensure the independence of the scientific basis by which we were doing rulemaking. That’s the process changes we’re engaged in that I think lead to good results at the end, and it’s what the American people deserve.
Bluey: Follow up to that last point you made. I know that when you announced that change, obviously there was a big uproar in the media and among those people who didn’t like the fact that you were trying to make this change. What have the results been in the months that followed?
Pruitt: Common sense is not too common, and so, I think when we make those kind of commonsense changes it’s disruptive to the status quo, but frankly, the status quo needs to be disrupted in these areas.
“Common sense is not too common, and so, I think when we make those kind of commonsense changes it’s disruptive to the status quo, but frankly, the status quo needs to be disrupted in these areas.”
We’re getting good accountability, good transparent outcomes. The other thing that’s just amazing to me is that the agency historically, as it’s done rulemaking, it contracts studies to third parties. It doesn’t do the science itself in some instances, it goes to a third party and says, “You do the science for us, give us the findings.” But then when the findings come back to the agency, they don’t provide the methodology, nor do they provide the data. And so there’s no transparency in that process. We’re going to get accountability there as well.
These matters, at the end of the day, I think are what we should be focused upon. As we do our work, do it with a commitment to transparency and objectivity, making sure that we have a record that is solid, and in making informed decisions about the rules that we’re passing so that the American people have a voice, and that we know how it’s going to impact positively the environment, but also the cost-benefit aspect.
Bluey: Speaking at the Reagan Dinner at CPAC is a real honor. There have been many who’ve come before you and had this opportunity to address the audience. What message do you want to leave the CPAC attendees this year?
Pruitt: This first year as I’ve served, and as the president has served this country, he’s a person of results.
You think about the State of the Union. His message that night was powerful. I think it was very powerful. But it was powerful because he said look what we’ve accomplished this past year. Look what we promised, look what we’ve done, look at the impact it’s having on the economy. And look what’s going to happen as we go into 2018.
I love how the president leads with a commitment to getting results. And I think the American people, as I serve in this capacity, we’ve got to focus on what. Key objectives that we want to achieve for the environment. Air, land, water, removing solid waste and hazardous wastes.
“Look what we promised, look what we’ve done, look at the impact it’s having on the economy.”
What are our objectives? Let’s focus on those to address all those very good things for the environment. But let’s also recognize that we have to have an attitude that says we can be about natural resource management and environmental stewardship, that we don’t have to choose. That’s one of the greatest challenges we have as a country. We need to get that question right and that answer right because we have so much opportunity.
It’s an exciting time to be serving. There’s wonderful things happening. And this country, I’m telling you, the growth that we’re seeing, it’s only the beginning. As we get together next year, which I pray we do, we’re going to celebrate another year of progress.
You talk about those 22 actions of $1 billion [at the EPA], $8 billion as a total for the administration. That’s really quite amazing. We’re going to see that continue through courageous leadership, and focus on getting results.
Rob Bluey is editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal, the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Rob. Twitter: @RobertBluey.
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is prior to addressing CPAC attendees, Scott Pruitt speaking exclusively to The Daily Signal about his first year as EPA administrator. (Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/Newscom)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/180224_ScottPruitt-1250x650-e1519645332623.jpg363640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-02-26 06:42:362018-02-26 20:20:08VIDEO: The Weaponization of the EPA Is Over: An Exclusive Interview With Scott Pruitt
A new study shows that if you aren’t ready to go vegan to save the world, then you should quit riding your bike and take a car.
An article in the Journal of Insufferable Busybodies (official title: Sustainable Production and Consumption) calculates the carbon footprint for a variety of sandwiches. These carbon footprints include carbon dioxide emissions from things such as farming, transportation, and refrigeration.
In the article, researchers at the University of Manchester offer helpful tips on Earth-friendly sandwich making. Among them: avoid using lettuce, tomatoes, cheese, and meat.
If you’re like me, though, every sandwich you’ve eaten since middle school includes at least two of those ingredients.
However, don’t despair, you still can alter your behavior to reduce your carbon footprint. In particular, make sure you don’t ride a bike when you could drive a car.
How’s that? Well, the people at Phys.org thought the sandwich-climate topic was important enough to get access to the full text of the original article.
They pass on this particularly interesting tidbit: A bacon, sausage, and egg sandwich (the whole Hampton Inn breakfast buffet in one tidy package) has a carbon footprint “equivalent to CO2 emissions from driving a car for 12 miles.”
Driving a car uses energy that comes from gasoline. Riding a bike uses energy that comes from the bicyclist’s food. Both sources of energy have carbon footprints.
We are told carbon dioxide emissions from the life-cycle process of producing a sandwich is equal to that of driving a car 12 miles. The question, then, is how far will the calories in that sandwich take you on a bike?
It isn’t clear that anybody in the U.S. has the courage to sell the cardiologist’s delight described above, which means the total caloric content of the sandwich doesn’t show up on the first page of a Google search. Fortunately, my calorie-counting app (no evidence of use since 2015, hmm … ) can do the job:
English muffin 150 calories
2 slices of bacon 87
2.5 ounces pork sausage 250
egg 72 Total 559 calories
According to this calculator, a 180-pound bicycle rider going 15 mph for 51 minutes will travel 11.9 miles, but expend 729 calories. So, this bacon, sausage, and egg sandwich doesn’t have enough food energy to power the cyclist for the full 12 miles.
The bicyclist would need to eat 1.3 sandwiches to go 12 miles. That is, the carbon dioxide footprint of riding a sandwich-fueled bike would be 30 percent higher than driving a car.
Since it takes more energy to move bigger people, the imperative to drive instead of ride is even greater for those who shop in the Big & Tall section.
A 222-pound blogger, for instance, would burn 899 calories for the same time and distance, requiring 60 percent more sandwich and, therefore, 60 percent more carbon dioxide from riding a bike than driving a car.
Of course, smaller people need less energy to propel themselves on a bike. The break-even weight for the ride-or-drive decision is around 140 pounds. Going more slowly helps, too.
If carbon dioxide-induced climate change is the existential threat some claim, and if people are still going to eat sandwiches that might include sausage, bacon, egg, tomato, lettuce, meat, or cheese, perhaps we need a prohibition against bike riding. Just sayin’.
David Kreutzer is the senior research fellow in labor markets and trade at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. Read his research. Twitter: @dwkreutzer.
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Ingram Publishing/Newscom.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/180130_GreenGas_Kreutzer-1250x650-e1519130051707.jpg6501125The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-02-20 07:35:072018-02-20 07:45:30Go Green With Gasoline If You’re Going to Consume That Sandwich
A superior observation I recently heard: “Humans face a far greater threat from one another, rather than from climate change.”
The corruption going on in our education system is simply stunningly bad.Nothing we do today regarding energy or environmental matters will make any difference if this is not fixed shortly. Please carefully read these important articles (here and here) by two different professors, at two different US colleges.
On a closely related matter, please consider The Decline and Fall of the Media and Will Journalism Destroy Science? We live in troubled times, where survival depends on getting educated (see prior paragraph), paying close attention,and then defending our rights.
Some of the more informative Global Warming articles in this issue are:
PS: 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 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.
PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/environmntal-news-1.jpg350640John Droz, Jr.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Droz, Jr.2018-02-19 06:05:522018-02-19 06:15:41Humans face a far greater threat from one another, rather than from climate change.
It didn’t take long at the UN’s “World Urban Forum,” currently underway in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, for those assembled to voice their displeasure with American freedom.
“We’re not sure what happened to North America [audience laughter] but we’re trying to make sustainable development great again,” said a panel of European Union mayors and city planners.
Debbie Bacigalupi is leading CFACT’s team in Malaysia (thanks CFACT supporters!) and we’d like to say she’s shocked, but at this point she’s seen it all too often before.
“You choosing where and how to live for yourself is not quite to their liking here at the World Urban Forum,” Debbie said. “They envision us shivering in towering, dimly lit, concrete cubes in a government-sponsored building project, not too different from those the Soviets left strewn about Eastern Europe. They’re confident we can squeak by on a trickle of expensive ‘Green’ electricity. They envision themselves living a trifle larger,” she added.
Prince Charles sent a special video message to the UN Ministers, delegates, city planners, bureaucrats and “stakeholders” declaring in Orwellian fashion, “Now is the time to implement the New Urban Agenda.” Do you think the Prince of Wales will join us in the scaled-down, carbon-neutral, bureaucratically prescribed dwelling-units he now champions? Charles appears willing to espouse any pious, left-wing cause in order to score points with the British media and ease the damage his reputation suffered by dumping the world’s most popular princess. He’d love to obtain the title “queen” (which he promised to abandon) for his second wife.
“Sustainable development” has become perhaps the world’s most dangerous term. It sounds nice, yet defies clear description. What it means at a UN forum like that in Malaysia is giving the Left whatever it wants. History has taught us that heavy-handed control is the most unsustainable way to govern. For a recent lesson just ask Venezuela.
American “farmers have gotten away with murder” sniffed Professor Eugenia Birch of the University of Pennsylvania in an interview with Debbie Bacigalupi. Birch is in Kuala Lumpur advocating an immediate resumption of the Obama-era push to bury farmers under an avalanche of over-regulation, particularly when it comes to so-called “clean water rules.” Fortunately for Professor Birch, our farmers will keep her fed.
Our would-be UN urban masters are convinced they are smarter than us. They’d like us to concede the point already, and do as we’re told. They’re so “all-knowing,” in fact, that they paid to place a loose insert into Kuala Lumpur’s local The Star newspaper. “Unfortunately, only half of the message was delivered as the bottom half of the ad was left empty with the words ‘add montage pictures of KL, Penang, Melaka, Putrajaya, Cyberjaya, Medan Pasar and KLCC.'”
If the 20th Century taught us anything it is that freedom is just and efficient. Central government planning is not. People need to know what the UN is planning before the future becomes half empty lives for the lot of us.
P.S. Thank you to everyone who gave so generously to make CFACT’s mission to the UN Forum in Kuala Lumpur a reality. Our team has a great deal more work to do. If you’ve not yet made your gift, can we count on you to chip in today? CFACT is effective, but only due to the support of our friends. Fortunately, you are the best.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/un-urban.jpg360640Committee For A Constructive Tomorrowhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCommittee For A Constructive Tomorrow2018-02-10 18:21:232018-02-10 18:21:23UN-American & Incompetent
In a remarkably frank admission that laid bare the stealth agenda behind global warming alarmism, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted during a February 2015 press conference in Brussels that the UN’s real purpose in creating climate fear is to end capitalism throughout the world:
This is the first time in human history that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally changing [getting rid of] the economic development model that has reigned since the Industrial Revolution.
The economic model to which she referred is free-market capitalism. A year earlier, Figueres revealed what capitalism must be replaced with when she bitterly complained that America’s two-party constitutional system is hampering the UN’s global climate objectives. She went on to cite China’s communist system as the kind of government America must have if the UN is to achieve its objectives. In other words, for the UN to have its way, America must be transformed into a communist nation.
Let that one sink in for a moment.
Figueres is not alone. Another high-level UN Marxist had comments of his own about the hidden agenda behind “climate change.” If you’re among those who believe progressives when they say all they’re trying to do is save the planet, what Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer had to say will leave your jaw on the floor.
In an unguarded statement that found its way into the public domain, Edenhofer, co-chair of the UN IPCC’s Working Group III, made this shocking admission on Nov. 14, 2010:
One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. [What we’re doing] has almost nothing to do with the climate. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.
On the same date, Edenhofer added this:
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which [re]distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.
Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer, one of the UN’s top climate officials, effectively admitted that the organization’s public position on global warming is a hoax, and another senior UN official, Christiana Figueres, said in an official capacity that the United States must have a communist government for the UN to achieve its objectives.
Let all of that sink in for a moment.
Some wealthy and powerful elites in this country believe it’s not fair that billions of people in the world sleep on the ground in mud huts, while Americans sleep on soft mattresses in air-conditioned comfort. The progressive elites who feel that way also believe that a significantly greater portion of America’s wealth must therefore be “shared” (redistributed) to poor nations. Global wealth redistribution is the foremost tenet of communism, and those who advocate it are, by definition, communists, whether they are open about it or not.
The stunning pronouncements by Figueres and Edenhofer are all the evidence a rational mind needs to conclude that climate alarmism is being used as a Trojan horse to justify the massive new carbon taxes clamored for by powerful progressives like Barack Obama, Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, none of whom have denounced the pro-communist, anti-American sentiments of two of the UN’s top climate officials.
The words of one of those officials revealed that such taxes would be used not for environmental purposes, but to fund the most massive redistribution of wealth in the history of the world, literally trillions of dollars extracted under false pretenses from U.S. taxpayers, and given to the corrupt governments of every undeveloped nation on Earth, all in the guise of “climate aid.”
Progressives in high places are attempting the largest heist in human history, a collusion to exfiltrate unprecedented sums of money from the world’s largest capitalist nation. Why? The answer is obvious—to implement, on a global scale, the mandate set forth in The Communist Manifesto:
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. – Karl Marx
Outraged that Trump dealt their plan to redistribute America’s wealth a major setback when he ditched their precious Paris Climate Accords, progressives would have you believe they’re nothing more than environmentally-concerned Americans who would never even dream of participating in an effort to upend their country’s capitalist system.
Trump knows that’s a big lie. And now, so do you.
No intelligent person can fail to recognize that powerful progressives in this country are using “climate change” as a ruse to fundamentally transform the United States of America. But because the human ego is loathe to admit when it’s been duped, many Americans will continue allowing themselves to be led like sheep into the closing noose of the hammer and sickle. By the time they realize what happened, it will be too late. In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler wrote about a Third Reich propaganda technique called the Big Lie: ‘If you’re going to lie, make it a Big Lie, keep repeating it and people will believe it.’ That’s exactly what he did, and millions of otherwise intelligent Germans believed the Big Lies that were relentlessly repeated. By the time they realized they’d been duped, it was too late.
In 2015, the Obama administration finalized its infamous “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule—also known as the Clean Water Rule—that sought to regulate almost every type of water imaginable under the Clean Water Act.
To its credit, the Trump administration is taking action to get rid of this rule by withdrawing it and then issuing a new definition of what waters are covered under the Clean Water Rule.
This process, though, will require significant litigation as lawsuits pile up in an effort to block the administration from protecting the environment in a manner that also respects property rights, federalism, and the rule of law.
In fact, the litigation is already getting underway.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers just finalized a rule that would delay the applicability date of the WOTUS rule by two years. This action helps give the agencies time to work through the regulatory process without rushing, and ensures that during this time, the WOTUS rule won’t go into effect.
Given uncertainty about litigation in multiple district courts over the 2015 rule, this action provides certainty and consistency to the regulated community and the public, and minimizes confusion as the agencies reconsider the definition of the ‘waters of the United States’ that should be covered under the Clean Water Act.
This commonsense delay, though, apparently didn’t please New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. He recently announced that he was going to sue the administration for this new rule to delay the Obama administration WOTUS rule.
He explained, “The Trump administration’s suspension of these vital protections [the WOTUS Rule] is reckless and illegal.”
He also stated, “Make no mistake: Abandoning the Clean Water Rule will mean pollution, flooding, and harm to fish and wildlife in New York and across the country—undermining decades of work to protect and enhance our water resources.”
He makes it sound as if the WOTUS rule is the only thing protecting us from Armageddon. But in fact it is new policy and hasn’t even gone into effect—so how does it have anything to do with decades of environmental protection? It isn’t as though nixing the WOTUS rule means there will be no environmental protections.
It’s hard to see how a federal power grab that would regulate what most people would consider dry land is so critical to water, or why making it more difficult for farmers to engage in normal farming practices is going to be good for New York and the country.
Is the regulation of man-made ditches a must? Is it really a must for the agencies to regulate waters that can’t even be seen by the naked eye? Should the federal government act as a de facto local zoning board and intrude on traditional state and local power? Do we need to trample on property rights to protect the environment?
These are all effects of the WOTUS rule.
Maybe Schneiderman and others who want to block the administration from getting rid of one of the most egregious federal rules in recent memory think these are all good impacts. Most people, though, likely think otherwise.
There is an underlying assumption held by many of those who welcome such federal overreach: the federal government must regulate almost every water because there is no other alternative. They choose to ignore the fact that even the Clean Water Act expressly recognizes that states are supposed to play a leading role in addressing water pollution.
They see regulation as the only solution to any alleged water problems, not other government alternatives and especially not private means of protecting the environment. Respect for property rights, the rule of law, and federalism apparently are not important.
What should be important to them and certainly to most people is a clean environment. An overboard and vague rule though that seeks to regulate almost every water and ignores states is harmful to the environment, and this is precisely how to describe the WOTUS rule.
By developing a new rule that recognizes the need to work with states to address water issues, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers will be helping the environment, not hurting it. A clear and objective rule, unlike the mess that is the WOTUS rule, helps both the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers with enforcement and makes consistent compliance by regulated entities far more likely.
The Trump administration appears to recognize the importance for such a new rule. It is unfortunate that some will use lawsuits to make it more difficult for them to achieve this critical objective.
Ultimately, Congress needs to clarify in the Clean Water Act exactly what waters are considered to be “waters of the United States,” because even if the Trump administration comes up with the greatest rule in history, a future administration could easily undo that excellent work.
In the interim, though, Congress needs to step in and eliminate unnecessary obstacles for the administration as it seeks to move forward with a new rule.
Daren Bakst studies and writes about agriculture subsidies, property rights, environmental policy, food labeling and related issues as The Heritage Foundation’s research fellow in agricultural policy. Read his research. Twitter: @darenbakst.
A Note for our Readers:
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/TrumpPruitt-1250x650-e1517915755591.jpg364640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-02-06 06:16:592018-02-06 06:16:59Trump Is Repealing Obama’s Harmful Water Rule. Why Efforts to Stop Him Are Misguided.
According to its website:
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano’s book, 
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, By Marc Morano
CFACT barnstormed CPAC, The Conservative Political Action Conference, this weekend with a series of activities that culminated in a light saber duel between “Green Energy” Darth Vader and the “Reliable Energy” Jedi!
