By Michael Bastasch on July 19, 2016
“We propose to shift responsibility for environmental regulation from the federal bureaucracy to the states and to transform the EPA into an independent bipartisan commission, similar to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with structural safeguards against politicized science,” reads the GOP platform.
Republicans are concerned about EPA’s regulatory overreach and have proposed bills to keep the agency from issuing new regulations on everything from global warming to smog. The GOP platform doubles down on promises made by presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump to get rid of the EPA.
GOP delegates approved the party’s new platform Monday. In terms of energy policy, it stands in stark contrast to the proposed Democrat platform that largely calls for eliminating America’s use of coal, oil and natural gas and subsidizing green power.
“Poverty, not wealth, is the gravest threat to the environment, while steady economic growth brings the technological advances which make environmental progress possible,” reads the GOP platform.
“The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists,” the platform reads. “They are using yesterday’s tools to control a future they do not comprehend.”…
CAMP NELSON, Calif. (AP) — At the foot of a giant sequoia in California’s Sierra Nevada, two arborists stepped into harnesses then inched up ropes more than 20 stories into the dizzying canopy of a tree that survived thousands of years, enduring drought, wildfire and disease.
There, the arborists clipped off tips of young branches to be hand-delivered across the country, cloned in a lab and eventually planted in a forest in some other part of the world.
The two are part of a cadre of modern day Johnny Appleseeds who believe California’s giant sequoias and coastal redwoods are blessed with some of the heartiest genetics of any trees on Earth – and that propagating them will help reverse climate change, at least in a small way.
“It’s a biological miracle,” said tree climber Jim Clark, firmly back on the ground and holding a green sprig to his lips as if to kiss it. “This piece of tissue … can be rooted, and we have a miniature 3,000-year-old…
By CRAIG BOUDREAU – 10:43 AM 07/20/2016
A group of adventurers, sailors, pilots and climate scientists that recently started a journey around the North Pole in an effort to show the lack of ice, has been blocked from further travels by ice.
The Polar Ocean Challenge is taking a two month journey that will see them go from Bristol, Alaska, to Norway, then to Russia through the North East passage, back to Alaska through the North West passage, to Greenland and then ultimately back to Bristol. Their objective, as laid out by their website, was to demonstrate “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through.”
There has been one small hiccup thus-far though: they are currently stuck in Murmansk, Russia because there is too much ice blocking the North East passage the team said didn’t exist in summer months, according to Real Climate Science.
Real Climate Science also provides a graph showing that current Arctic temperatures — despite alarmist claims of the Arctic being hotter than ever — is actually below normal.
[It’s Coming! CLIMATE HUSTLE DVDs and Blu-rays are NOW AVAILABLE! Pre-order yours today! Groundbreaking film that packed theaters across America on May 2nd called “brutal and extremely funny” by National Review, “tremendous” by Cal Thomas, and World Net Daily says it “could be the most important movie of the year.” (Order now: www.ClimateHustle.com)
POSTED AT 8:01 AM ON JULY 20, 2016 BY JAZZ SHAW
If you’re interested in having a vehicle which is more stingy with gasoline, there’s some good news out this week. There’s also some terrible news. If that leaves you feeling a bit confused, don’t feel too bad because the reports coming out of the government can be more than a little bewildering. For one example which came out on Monday, the EPA said they were on track to meet the goals announced by the Obama administration in 2012. These CAFE standards call for auto manufacturers to produce fleets of vehicles which average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Of course, that’s an average. If you produce some gas guzzling trucks, you’ll also need to sell hybrids to make up the difference.
But inside the same report, the EPA hedged their bets, saying that cheap gas will likely prompt more consumers to purchase bigger, less fuel efficient cars. And on top of that, the mileage standard really isn’t 54.5 miles per gallon anyway. (News 3 Las Vegas)
The U.S. government says the nation’s cars and trucks are well on their way to meeting fuel economy and emissions standards set for 2025, but cheaper gas prices could ultimately lower those targets by encouraging consumers to buy less-efficient vehicles…
Under standards set in 2012, automakers’ fleets were expected to get an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. That’s not the real-world mileage vehicles will get; it includes credits for things like more efficient air conditioning systems. The real-world mileage is closer to 40 miles per gallon.
Okay… so it’s not really 54.5 mpg, but actually more like 40. But that’s still not too bad, right? Heck, when I was growing up, 20 mpg was closer to the norm. But is it really 40 mpg? It turns out that we have no idea because the testing standards that the EPA uses to determine fuel efficiency don’t work. The actual mileage of the vehicles can’t be determined using the tests which the agency mandates. A new report in Wired Magazine explains that the methods in place were established in the 1970s and they don’t approach real world standards.
Even if the car companies do, they don’t. Or at least, no one has any way to know if they do. Because the EPA’s test to make sure automakers are
The United Nations has issued a plea for nations to fast-track ratification of the Paris Climate Agreement as some countries are backtracking on support for the deal’s sweeping restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged nations to attend a “special event” Thursday where they may deposit their “instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession to the Paris Agreement on climate change.”
“I urge you to accelerate your country’s domestic process for ratification of the Agreement this year,” Mr. Ban said in a statement.
The change of heart even has a name: “Clexit,” short for “climate exit,” a take-off on “Brexit,” the successful June 23 British vote to leave the European Union.
The most dramatic repudiation was from Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, elected in November, who said Monday that he “will not honor” the proposed restrictions on emissions. He called them stupid and cited his country’s need for greater economic development and industrialization.
Developed nations “were enjoying the booming [economy] and flooding the air with contaminants. Now that they are rich because of coal and industrialization, we are being asked to cut emission and limit our activities,” Mr. Duterte said in the Philippine Star.
Meanwhile, U.N. special envoy for climate change Mary Robinson decried Monday what she described as recent efforts by Germany and Britain to support the fossil fuel industry despite their previous support for the agreement.
The British government “introduced new tax breaks for oil and gas in 2015 that will cost U.K. taxpayer billions between 2015 and 2020, and, at the same time, they’ve cut support for renewables and for energy efficiency,” Ms. Robinson told The Guardian newspaper.
Marc Morano, who runs the skeptics’ website Climate Depot, said Tuesday that the cold feet on global warming shows that some countries are realizing the international climate agreement is “not in their best interests.”
“More and more nations are realizing that the U.N. climate treaty is nothing more than an effort to empower the U.N.and attack national sovereignty while doing absolutely nothing for the climate,” said Mr. Morano, who debuted his film “Climate Hustle” during
You’ve likely heard about the new collectibles taking the world by storm: They’re cute, cuddly, and exist only in a virtual world that may be better than the real one. We’re talking about Climate Change Inaction Figures.
A project of the National Geographic Channel’s Years of Living Dangerously, these anti-heroes are known for their blind rejection of facts, logic, and science. All can be acquired via social media and include such conservative thought leaders as:
Former Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio)
Governor Chris Christie (R-N.J.)
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.)
It is indisputable that significant climate change is a never ending condition: Earth’s climate, due to internal and external forces, is inconstant and variable across regions.
Chinese researchers determined that non-CO2 forcings are the principal causes of majors swings in a climate’s temperature, be it cooling and warming. They also determined that the modern 20th century warming, which doomsday alarmists attribute solely to the trace gas CO2, is well below the confirmed warming that took place in earlier, pre-industrial periods.
Their research is based on the empirical evidence of a reconstructed temperature dataset using tree rings from China’s northwestern Sichuan Plateau. This new dataset confirms what the multitude of previous studies have determined – significant climate changes are absolutely natural.
This study’s conclusions:
“Seven major cold periods and three major warm periods were identified from this reconstruction, which might be linked with volcanic and solar activities. The Little Ice Age (LIA) climate can also be well represented and clearly end with climatic amelioration at the end of the 19th century. The 18th and 20th centuries were warm with less extreme cold years, while the 17th and 19th century were cold with more extreme cold years. Moreover, the 20th century rapid warming was not obvious in our RLST reconstruction, which implies that mean maximum temperature, as a unique temperature indicator, might play an important and different role in global change. Overall, the RLST variability in the NWSP might be associated with global land–sea atmospheric circulation (e.g., ENSO, PDO, or AMO) as well as solar and volcanic forcing”…
In recent years we’ve documented the true motivations that are driving the global warming scare.
Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, who aspires to be U.N. secretary general, has admitted that the goal of environmental activists is to destroy capitalism.
One-time U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chairman Rajendra Pachauri acknowledged that his “fight” against global warming is his “religion” and “dharma.”
Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the IPCC working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015, has conceded that the climate crusade is an effort to shackle capitalism and establish a global welfare state.
Now we have Bank of England Governor Mark Carney revealing a deeper objective when he talked about how stopping climate change will provide capital markets with as much as a $7 trillion investment opportunity.
Of course his pitch is supposed to sound appealing to capitalists and defenders of the free market. But what good is sinking trillions into investments that are both unnecessary and are unlikely to produce a return?
The carbon trading scheme that was supposed to fuel economic growth while cutting man’s carbon dioxide emissions has turned out to be virtually worthless in Europe. There’s no reason to think Carney’s plot would produce better results.
But it would likely be a lucrative venture for Carney. He “and his banker mates,” Eric Worral writes on the Watts Up With That? blog, “would stand to make a lot of money, out of a vast surge in climate ‘compliance’ activity which would be associated with the new regulations.”
Some might call that “greed.” But to Carney, maybe it’s simply a matter of ensuring domestic tranquility. If his “investment” ideas become reality, then he pleases his wife Diana Fox Carney, who is such an environmentalist zealot that she is almost too easy to make fun of, and he also makes a few extra pounds on the side to add to his central banker’s salary, which is about $1.2 million a year.