Test post custom excerpt.
THIS IS THE TEST.
THIS IS ALSO THE TEST.
About an hour and a half into Deputy Interior Secretary nominee David Bernhardt’s Thursday confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, committee member Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) asked Bernhardt whether he believes climate change represents a “serious threat that requires aggressive action?”
In response, Bernhardt commented that “we need to take the science as it comes, whatever that is.”
After Franken interjected and stated, “I believe the science is pretty decided on this,” Bernhardt added, “I personally believe that the [human] contribution [to climate change] is significant, very significant. Now, that’s different that what we do with it, and here’s where people disagree.”
“My task will be to take the science, put it in the paradigm of the administration’s policy perspective which is [that] we’re not going to sacrifice jobs for this and then look at the legal rubric and say how do we apply the law there?” Bernhardt added.
Franken called his response “incredibly short-sighted” given job opportunities in the clean energy sector, and pressed Bernhardt on the matter again, saying “the science is in.”
“Policy decisions are made,” Bernhardt responded. “This president ran on a particular perspective. That perspective won’t change to the extent that we have the discretion under the law to follow it. In some instances we might not, but those that we do, we’re absolutely going to follow the policy perspective of the president. And here’s why: That’s the way our republic works and he is the president.”
Bernhardt, an attorney at the well-connected law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreckwho previously served as the Interior’s top lawyer under former President George W. Bush, also faced pointed questions on Thursday concerning potential conflicts of interest arising from Bernhardt’s connections to the firm’s current or former clients.
By the way, that $300 billion is in addition to the $100 billion that the world’s governments have already promised to deliver under the Paris Climate Agreement. So now they’re asking for a total of $400 billion a year in climate welfare for the developing world. No sane government would sign on to such a scam. Which of course means that most of them probably will.
There’s really no end to this insanity. To make it worse, the proposal before the Bonn climate talks calls for the added taxpayer-funded cash to be doled out not by the governments themselves, or even the U.N. No, the money will be channeled through existing nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs.
In other words, left-wing green groups around the world will become the conduits for billions of dollars in money handed out to ethically challenged, nondemocratic governments. Think there might be a tiny temptation for corruption there?
As one green group leader put it, NGOs, not the U.N., need to dole out all this money because “It’s so tedious to set up an institution and get it going, and make sure the money reaches the intended people.”
Such a scheme will no doubt lead to massive looting and fraud by green groups, which will suddenly hire massive new staffs to handle their new duties, and pay for it all through enormous “handling fees,” “service charges,” and other nontransparent charges paid for by American taxpayers. Basically, it’s a financial model designed to create global fraud.
Coal will remain India’s main energy source for the next three decades although its share will gradually fall as the country pushes renewable power generation, according to a government report seen by Reuters. The country is the world’s third-largest coal producer and the third-biggest greenhouse gas emitter.
THIS IS A CUSTOM EXCERPT…
Last Sunday voters in Germany’s most populous state, North Rhine Wesphalia (NRW), sent a loud message: voters are much more concerned about problems other than climate protection and green energies. The state’s ruling SPD Socialists/Green Party coalition government led by Hannelore Kraft took an historic beating, getting tossed out as the state swung far – from the left to the right.
India meets climate goals early by doubling coal, and keeping it as main energy source for next 30 years
In the last day in the media, India is going to use coal as its backbone energy for the next thirty years, is buying coal mines all around the world, and will double production by 2020 to a massive 1,500 billion tons per annum. At the same time India is meetings its climate goals early, and is likely to reduce emissions by 2 – 3 billion tons by 2030.
A 70 percent cut
‘Carbon dioxide and global warming changed that’
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
Will he or won’t he? There has been much discussion of whether President Trump keeps the US in the Paris Agreement. If we are having this debate then Trump has already won.
Much of climate debate (at least in the US) is about symbols, and Trump has roundly routed his opponents on this turf
So think of the Paris Agreement not as a policy framework, but rather as a potent political symbol.
As a symbol, here is how the politics works: Trump pulls out of Paris, Trump wins. Trump stays in, Trump wins. Fun game, huh?
In a perceptive piece @jmcurtin writes: “The only White House climate debate is between those who want to use the Paris climate agreement as a branding and lobbying opportunity, and those who favour leaving it altogether.”
Similarly, President Trump has made a big deal of reversing Obama’s Clan Power Plan. This too is a symbolic action. According to EIA, the impact of the CPP is pretty marginal:
- In fact, its projected impact of the CPP is far less than market prices for fossil fuels, again according to EIA:
- Consider that the CPP would likely have been tied up in the courts during a Hilary Clinton administration and you get … symbolism.
- Advocates for more aggressive climate action should use the opportunity afforded by the Trump presidency to fundamentally rethink climate policy in a way that would be politically robust.
- Did the recent Science March help to bring people together? Early evidence says: probably not.
- After failing to get Bret Stephens fired from the New York Times, the nation’s leading climate scientist, Michael Mann (@MichaelEMann) has focused his vitriol on cartoonist Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame (@ScottAdamsSays).
- I can’t believe I just wrote that. (Seriously, if you are not yet blocked by Mann, go over and read his Twitter feed for a glimpse into the world view of the nation’s most important climate scientist.)
- Pro tip: If you don’t want to be viewed as analogous to a religious fundamentalist, don’t go after cartoonists.