Global Warming-Energy-Environment

global warming, Climategate, environment, environmentalists, activists, scare tactics, greens, Kyoto, carbon dioxide, facts and myths, greenhouse gases, United Nations report on climate change, Debunking, Energy, Oil, Gas, Fracking, EPA, Energy, oil drilling, gas, nuclear power, food scares, genetically modified food, organic food

EPA’s suspect science

President Trump’s budget guidance sought to cut $1.6 billion from the Environmental Protection Agency’s $8.1 billion expectation. Shrieks of looming Armageddon prompted Congress to fund EPA in full until September 2017, when the battle will be joined again.

Then EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said he would prioritize Superfund cleanups based on toxicity, health-impact and other factors. The ensuing caterwauling suggested that EPA had no priorities since Bill Ruckelshaus (EPA’s first administrator, 1970-1975). But consider some standard EPA practices:

By Guest Column -- John Rafuse- Thursday, June 22, 2017 - Full Story

New York’s Bet on Silevo’s Solar Technology Fails to Deliver

New York’s deal with Silevo Inc. is a sham and illustrates the problems that arise when politicians use taxpayer money to attract and reward favored industries. Silevo, which was acquired by Solar City, is a photovoltaic cell and module technology company that developed the proprietary Triex solar modules. New York’s deal with Silevo was to establish a manufacturing facility to produce 1 gigawatt worth (10,000 solar panels a day) of its Triex module technology with the potential of adding an additional 5 gigawatts of capacity in a later phase.

The agreement granted Silevo the use of a 1,000,000-square-foot factory in Buffalo, occupying 88 acres, with a lease that runs for 10 years and a 10-year renewal right. The rent is $1 or $2 per year. New York promised to spend $750 million on the factory and purchasing manufacturing equipment.1

By Institute for Energy Research - Thursday, June 22, 2017 - Full Story

U.S. right to withdraw from a con triggered by propaganda not science!

PRINCETON, New Jersey — The United States was right to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement which makes no scientific or moral sense and was extremely unfair to Americans. 

Misled by inaccurate “scientific” arguments, a world-wide network of sanctimonious policy makers generated The Agreement to solve a problem that does not exist — “carbon pollution” from burning coal, oil and gas. 

Indeed, uncontrolled combustion of fossil fuels can generate real pollutants: fly ash, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, heavy metals, etc. that can and should be controlled with cost effective technologies as has been done in the United States resulting in one of the cleanest environments in the world.

By Guest Column -- William Happer- Wednesday, June 21, 2017 - Full Story

The Wind Lobby’s Preemptive Strike on the Perry Grid Study

In an April 14 memo circulated through the Department of Energy, Secretary Rick Perry ordered a 60-day DOE study of the electric grid examining “the extent to which continued regulatory burdens, as well as mandates and tax and subsidy policies, are responsible for forcing the premature retirement of baseload power plants.” In this era of overwrought political outrage, even an innocuous, consumer-focused initiative such as this grid study can become the focus of a partisan furor. And indeed this study has.

Just three days after Perry ordered the DOE study, American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) CEO Tom Kiernan issued a memo of his own laying out an explicit plan to delegitimize the project. The memo—obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation, posted on the open-publishing website Scribd, and subsequently deleted—catalogued a series of actions AWEA would pursue to undermine DOE’s as-of-yet unpublished study.

As Kiernan wrote on April 17:

By Institute for Energy Research - Wednesday, June 21, 2017 - Full Story

Why the Russians Conceived the Global Warming Scam

One of my duties at Accuracy in Media (AIM) has been to expose left-wingers in the media and Congress who were soft on the old Soviet Union and are now acting like hard-liners on Vladimir Putin’s Russia. It is a fascinating topic which exposes the duplicity of the left-wing obsession with Russia.

These people, who were soft on the Soviet Union and now hard on Russia, are the worst kind of hypocrites. Their hypocrisy is further demonstrated by the abundant evidence that the global warming or climate change theory, which they now embrace, was conceived by Soviet communists as a means by which to destroy the industrial base in the United States. This disinformation theme has been embraced by the liberals now claiming to be tough on Russia.

Don’t take my word for it. When Natalie Grant Wraga died in 2002 at the age of 101, The Washington Post recognized her expertise as a Soviet expert, noting that she was “born in czarist Russia, saw great upheaval in her native land and became an expert in unmasking Soviet deception methods for the State Department…”

By Cliff Kincaid - Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - Full Story

Touchstone Donald and Climate change

Touchstones change color when rubbed against gold. They can gauge an alloy’s purity. Global Warming is a touchstone of our times. Ask someone about it. If they say it’s a hoax, you’ve found gold. You’ve found someone with awareness. 

On June 1, 2017 in a much-anticipated Rose Garden speech President Trump announced America’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement.1 Festivities lasted 34 minutes beginning with an intro from VP Pence who praised Trump’s economic nationalism. Trump’s 30-minute address thrice mentioned climate. He said:

“This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.”

By Guest Column William Walter Kay,- Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - Full Story

Why are billionaires, media, academia, environmental movement promoting the enslavement of their cit

“One must give the Soviets their due. No other country is capable as are the Soviets of manipulating public opinion in the West.”—Natalie Grant Wraga

Few intelligent people understood the global environmental communist agenda twenty years ago but Natalie Grant Wraga did. The majority did not pay careful attention and the MSM presented the environmental agenda of Cultural Marxism in a very positive light that seemed logical.

Most people understood the chemical and trash pollution of air, water, and soil. We could see it around us. Nobody wanted to live in a dirty world, polluted beyond safe and healthy habitation. Who can possibly object to the protection of endangered species that have been overhunted for food, selfish predatory trophies, or tribal customs?

By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh - Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - Full Story

Clarifying Paris, Part 1

The popular narrative in the major media and coming from most public intellectuals is that President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement represents a flat denial of basic science that threatens the survival of humanity itself. Furthermore—so the popular critique goes—Trump’s official reasons for withdrawal make no sense, since the Agreement was non-binding and therefore didn’t constrain US policy in any way.

In a series of posts here at IER, I will document just how nonsensical this popular narrative is. As we will see, the Paris Climate Agreement was not integral to “saving the planet,” even if we rely solely on the conventional computer forecasts of climate change and its impacts as codified by the UN’s IPCC reports. Moreover, even if it were true that aggressive government action were needed to avert catastrophe, then the Paris Agreement wasn’t the solution—as even its fans admit.

In sum, whether one is relaxed or terrified at the prospect of climate change, US participation with the Paris Agreement is a red herring. It was a largely symbolic ritual, with the only guaranteed tangible result being hundreds of billions of dollars being transferred among governments.

By Institute for Energy Research - Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - Full Story

By the way, the U.S. has become the world’s dominant energy superpower

Quick quiz: Which nation is the world’s leading producer of natural gas? No, not the Russians.

Which nation is the leading producer of oil and petroleum hydrocarbons? No, not the Saudis.

We complained a lot during the previous adminstration about Barack Obama’s hostility toward traditional energy sources, and rightfully so. He did everything he could to thwart the U.S. energy industry in its move to rise up as the world’s dominant energy power. And while Obama did slow down the effort, he wasn’t able to prevent its ultimate success.

Per the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. today is near dominant in global energy markets, and one of the most positive developments is the resumption of U.S. energy exports:

By Dan Calabrese - Monday, June 19, 2017 - Full Story

Advancing scientific integrity on bees

Second Lady Karen Pence and Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue recently teamed up to install a honeybee hive on the grounds of the Vice President’s residence at the Naval Observatory in Washington, DC. This will serve as a “great example” of what people can do to help “reverse the decline” in managed honeybee colonies around the country, the secretary said.

Helping bees and educating people about bee problems is a good idea. However, if the hive is an attempt to reduce media and environmentalist criticism of Trump Administration policies—or put the Pences and Ag Department on the “right” side of the “bee-pocalypse” issue—it will backfire. It will also undermine administration efforts to advance evidence-based science, restore integrity to scientific and regulatory processes, promote safe modern technologies, and support continued crop production and exports.

By Paul Driessen - Monday, June 19, 2017 - Full Story

Green Technologies Cannot Survive in the Marketplace without Subsidies

Green technologies (e.g., wind, solar and electric vehicles) cannot compete in the marketplace without subsidies or other favorable government policies.

In Nevada, for example, when the government modified its policy to pay customers less for excess power produced by rooftop solar systems, solar installers left the state for others providing more favorable net metering policies. With its solar installations down, Nevada’s legislature recently passed a net metering bill, which the Governor is expected to sign, that brings back net metering at a slightly discounted rate.

By Institute for Energy Research - Thursday, June 15, 2017 - Full Story

Oil Prices Are Set To Rebound

The latest selloff in oil prices have left speculators in a predicament: The fundamentals continue to look poor with unimpressive drawdowns in crude oil stocks, but there is a general consensus that the extension of the OPEC deal should push the market towards a rebalancing over the next few quarters.

What that means for short-term movements in prices is unclear. The unpredictability of today’s oil market is leaving some investors burned by unexpected price gyrations. For example, just ahead of the recent selloff in prices last week, oil traders bought up bets on rising prices. Hedge funds and other money managers increased their bullish bets by 7.3 percent for the week ending on June 6, but prices plunged by 5 percent a day later.

By Oilprice.com -- Nick Cunningham- Wednesday, June 14, 2017 - Full Story

Roots of the Paris Agreement Part III: Ken Lay and Enron

“I am writing to urge you to attend the upcoming United Nations Conference on Environment and Development [‘Earth Summit’] scheduled for early June in Brazil and to support the concept of establishing a reasonable, non-binding, stabilization level of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.” —Ken Lay [CEO, Enron Corp.] to George H.W. Bush, Letter of April 3, 1992.

“The United States fully intends to be the world’s preeminent leader in protecting the global environment. Environmental protection makes growth sustainable…. [This] recognition…by leaders from around the world is the central accomplishment of this important [United Nations] Rio Conference.” —George H. W. Bush, “News Conference in Rio de Janeiro, June 13, 1992.

Connect these five dots: Enron…George H. W. Bush…Rio Earth Summit 1992…Kyoto Protocol of 1997…Paris Climate Agreement of 2015.

By Institute for Energy Research - Wednesday, June 14, 2017 - Full Story

Jobs, Energy, and Economics

In the debates over energy markets and climate change policy, people often cite dueling statistics over jobs. Two recent examples concern the different amounts of workers-per-electricity-output across various fuel types, and the impact of greenhouse gas emissions restrictions on American jobs. In both cases, the advocates of government intervention in the energy sector misunderstand the economic rationale of jobs.

By Institute for Energy Research - Tuesday, June 13, 2017 - Full Story

The Paris Agreement Had No Teeth

The Paris agreement had no teeth. It was voluntary. Double voluntary, in fact. Nations could choose their reduction levels and there was no enforcement mechanism. Nevertheless, the U.S. withdrawal has prompted warnings of environmental catastrophe, with David Gergen calling it “one of the most shameful acts” in America’s history.

Yet if it’s actions that count, the United States is doing pretty well.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration earlier this year reported that U.S. emissions of CO2 have dropped to the lowest level since 1991. This is almost entirely because utilities are replacing closing coal-fired plants with those that burn far-cleaner, and now cheaper, natural gas.

By Michael Fumento - Tuesday, June 13, 2017 - Full Story

The Climate Confederacy

After President Trump rejected the Paris Climate treaty, which had never been ratified by the Senate, the European Union announced that it would work with a climate confederacy of secessionist states. Scotland and Norway’s environmental ministers have mentioned a focus on individual American states. And the secessionist governments of California, New York and Washington have announced that they will unilaterally and illegally enter into a foreign treaty rejected by the President of the United States.

The Constitution is very clear about this. “No state shall enter into any treaty.” Governor Cuomo of New York has been equally clear. “New York State is committed to meeting the standards set forth in the Paris Accord regardless of Washington’s irresponsible actions.”

By Daniel Greenfield - Tuesday, June 13, 2017 - Full Story

Oceans, Climate Change Hysteria, and More Wealth Redistribution

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) held a “side event” on June 6, 2017 during the “first-ever” United Nations Ocean Conference. This side event’s topic was “Ocean Health, Climate Change and Migration: Understanding the Nexus and Implications for People on the Move.”

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Permanent Mission of Madagascar and Ecuador partnered with IOM to promote the implementation of Sustainable Development, Goal #14 of U.N.’s Agenda 2030, “to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.

The idea of all these U.N. sponsored conferences around the globe is that, if the United Nations is in control and is the ultimate decision-maker, all the goals of the Agenda 2030 can be easily implemented and the wealth redistributed to all third world nations while protecting Mother Earth from hysterical Armageddon.

By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh - Monday, June 12, 2017 - Full Story

More rational policies in our future?

In the wake of President Trump’s exit from the Paris climate treaty, reactions from other quarters were predictably swift, nasty, sanctimonious and hypocritical.

Al Gore paused near one of the private jets he takes to hector lesser mortals to say the action will bring “a global weather apocalypse.” Billionaire Tom Steyer got rich selling coal but called the President’s action “a traitorous act of war.” Actor-activist Mark Ruffalo railed that Trump has “the death of whole nations on his hands.” Michael Moore said the action was “a crime against humanity.” Former President Obama said it threatened “the one planet we’ve got” (to say nothing of what’s left of his executive orders legacy).

In truth, President Trump’s bold decision underscores the ill-informed science, economics, ethics and energy politics that have driven climate cataclysm caterwauling for decades. His exit decision, his insistence that NATO members pay their agreed dues for defending Europe, the impacts of widespread green energy poverty, and the hard economic and environmental realities of wind, solar and biofuel “alternatives” to fossil fuels will likely awaken other leaders—and persuade other nations to Exit Paris.

By Paul Driessen - Sunday, June 11, 2017 - Full Story

Turtles and Reality

In the local environs several kinds of turtles are common, including Painted turtles, Map turtles, Snapping turtles, Stinkpots, and possibly others. On a sunny spring day, one can see several out of the water on a rock, trying to catch a ray of warm sunshine before diving back into the still cold water of perhaps 7 °C (45 °F).

It’s already the month of June and both air and water temperatures are well behind the seasonally adjusted “global warming = climate change = frying planet” conditions that were proclaimed by so many climate doomsters. They should come by soon, before the water freezes over again, a few feet deep, for months. Perhaps, it might help them to distinguish “carbon pollution” from real pollution—and facts from fictio

By Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser - Sunday, June 11, 2017 - Full Story

“Pittsburgh, Not Paris”

In his Paris Agreement withdrawal announcement last week, Donald Trump memorably stated he was elected to represent “Pittsburgh, not Paris.”

The line resonated with Trump supporters and Paris opponents as a nod to the strain of our cultural discourse that highlights a growing rift between a beer-drinking, heartland-dwelling, “nationalist” cohort and a wine-tasting, cosmopolitan, “globalist” elite. The “Pittsburgh” contingent would of course support Trump’s withdrawal from the scheme concocted by “Paris” types like John Kerry.

But perhaps someone on Trump’s team should have done a bit more research before penning the line, because the city of Pittsburgh—to my personal surprise, I’ll concede—voted in favor of Hillary Clinton, and by extension the Paris accord.

The line, which in the moment sounded meaningful, has turned into a minor rhetorical embarrassment creating an opportunity for Paris Agreement supporters to assert that even the people Trump thinks he’s helping with the withdrawal are opposed to it. Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto, for example, has taken to the pages of national newspapers, co-writing a New York Times op-ed with his Paris counterpart Anne Hidalgo to sing the deal’s praises.

By Institute for Energy Research - Saturday, June 10, 2017 - Full Story