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

Energy Secretary Right on Climate Change

Energy Secretary Rick Perry did a remarkable thing last week: he expressed skepticism about the causes of climate change in a TV interview and, even after widespread condemnation from environmentalists and the press, he did it again a few days later before a major Senate committee.

After telling a CNBC host on June 19 that he did not believe that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary “control knob” for climate, Perry said:

“this idea that science [of climate change] is just absolutely settled and if you don’t believe it’s settled then you’re somehow another Neanderthal, that is so inappropriate from my perspective. I think if you’re going to be a wise, intellectually-engaged person, being a skeptic about some of these issues is quite alright.”

By Tom Harris - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - Full Story

The Europeanization of the Great Lakes States’ Wetlands Laws & Regulations

For more than 15 years, in addition to practicing law, I have been engaged in Washington, D.C. and around the nation, in public international, federal and state policy practice.  My public policy practice has focused, in part, on how the European Union, formed upon the execution of the 1992 Maastrict Treaty by the countries of Europe, has, at the insistence of European regional industries, exported around the world Europe’s relatively higher cost of sustainable development/Agenda 21-modeled environmental regulation.  While European governments’ stated purpose for exporting such rules was to “save the planet” from the capitalist system which allegedly “bore humanity’s greed and avarice”, it’s other self-professed purpose was to serve as “good” disguised trade protectionism capable of “leveling the global economic playing field” for Europe’s economically besieged industries.

By Lawrence Kogan - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - Full Story

Questioning Recycling Of Wind Turbine Blades

Although wind power achieved just 0.39% of the world’s total energy consumption as of 2013, it is assumed that a rapid expansion of wind power will ultimately be environmentally advantageous both due to its reputation as a ‘clean’ energy and because of the potential to contribute to reduced CO2 emissions.1

Besides reducing wildlife populations, perhaps one of the most underrated negative side effects of building wind turbines is that they don’t last very long before they need to be replaced.

The blades, made with composites, are currently regarded as unrecyclable. With the first wave of early commercial wind turbine installations now approaching their end of life, the problem of blade disposal is just beginning to emerge as a significant factor for the future.

By Jack Dini - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - Full Story

New Report: CCS would make renewables and nuclear energy look cheap

That is the stark message of Professor Gordon Hughes, Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh and a former adviser to the World Bank. In a new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Hughes says that claims that costs will fall quickly are unlikely to be borne out in practice and even if they are, the total investment required makes CCS little more than a utopian dream.

And as Professor Hughes explains:

By News on the Net - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - Full Story

BP Sees Large Drop in Global Coal Production, Small Drop in Consumption

According to BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy1, global coal production dropped by 6.5 percent in 2016 with a slower drop in global coal consumption of 1.7 percent. Coal consumption was 2.1 percent higher than coal production in 2016, lowering the level of global coal stocks. China, the world’s largest energy consumer and emitter of greenhouse gases, consumed the less coal in 2016 than in any of the previous six years, dropping its consumption by 1.6 percent from the previous 2015. In the United States, coal consumption dropped by over 8 percent to a level last seen in the early 1980s. Not all countries lowered their coal use, however. Turkey and the Ukraine, for example, increased their use of coal, as did Indonesia and some other Asian countries.

By Institute for Energy Research - Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - Full Story

We should be glad the US is out

Ten states, some 150 cities, and 1,100 businesses, universities and organizations insist “We are still in”—committed to the Paris climate agreement and determined to continue reducing carbon dioxide emissions and preventing climate change. In the process, WASI members claim, they will create jobs and promote innovation, trade and international competitiveness. It’s mostly hype, puffery and belief in tooth fairies.

Let’s begin with the climate. When Delaware signed on to WASI, for example, Governor Carney cited rising average temperatures, rising sea levels, and an increase in extreme weather events. In Delaware, sea level rise is almost entirely due to subsiding land resulting from compaction of glacial outwash, isostatic response from the retreat of the ice sheets more than 12,000 years ago, and groundwater extraction.

By Paul Driessen & David R. Legates- Monday, June 26, 2017 - Full Story

Is There Still Hope For Higher Oil Prices?

Oil prices have cratered in recent weeks, dipping to their lowest levels in more than seven months and any sense of optimism has almost entirely disappeared. All signs point to a period of “lower for longer” for oil prices, a refrain that is all too familiar to those in the industry.

WTI dipped below $44 per barrel on Tuesday, and the bearish indicators are starting to pile up.

Libya’s production just topped 900,000 bpd, a new multi-year high that is up sharply even from just a few weeks ago. Libyan officials are hoping that they will hit many more milestones in the coming months. Next stop is 1 million barrels per day (mb/d), which Libya hopes to breach by the end of July.

By -- Nick Cunningham- Monday, June 26, 2017 - Full Story

Scientific Expeditions Get Stuck in Arctic and Antarctic Ice

The science team of Canadian Research icebreaker CCGS Amundsen involving 40 scientists, five universities and $17 million in taxpayer funding to study climate change canceled the first leg of the 2017 Arctic expedition due to extreme ice condition in the south. This meant the ship would arrive too late on site to meet research objectives.

The decision to terminate the 2017 program has significant impacts on partners and the large number of graduate students involved.

The Philosophic Roots of the Paris Agreement Part IV: Conservationism

Previous posts in this series have linked the philosophical roots of the global climate-change movement to the doctrines of Deep Ecology (optimal, fragile, sacrosanct nature) and Malthusianism (the people problem). A third sister intellectual/activist movement is conservationism, or less-is-more as a physical (versus economic) imperative.[1]

Nonuse or less use for its own sake is different and beyond self-interested, voluntary conservation, or market-based efficiency, wherein cost-minimization/profit-maximization by the economic actor reduces usage. In personal situations, it generally is an affordability decision to not buy; in business settings, it is paring inputs (reducing cost) for a desired, given output.

By Institute for Energy Research - Saturday, June 24, 2017 - Full Story

The Wind Lobby’s Policy Two-Step

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) announced the publication of a report touting wind as both a cost-effective and a reliable source of energy for the electricity grid. The report—which was supported with AWEA funding and written by the Analysis Group—presents energy-source diversity on the grid as a necessary good and wind’s emergence as a product of market forces. IER’s initial response can be found here and today we will follow up with an addendum from IER’s chief economist, Dr. Robert Murphy. Murphy’s commentary can be read below:

The Analysis Group report illustrates the familiar two-step in current energy policy debates. On the one hand, it is considered critical to keep in place measures such as state-based Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and federal measures such as the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the so-called Clean Power Plan (CPP). On the other hand, when critics object to the distortions that these measures cause, the defenders rush to claim that these policies have very little impact on the energy sector, because the major changes are all driven by market fundamentals. So which is it? If most of the changes really are driven by the market, then the interventionists shouldn’t defend RPS, PTC, CPP, and so on with such vigor.

By Institute for Energy Research - Saturday, June 24, 2017 - Full Story

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