EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt: Trump put America first when he withdrew from Paris Accord one year ago

One year ago, on June 1, 2017, President Trump boldly and courageously announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.

This was a historic moment that upheld the president’s campaign promise and demonstrated to the world that he puts the American people first. The president’s decision, together with his decisive actions through regulatory reforms and tax relief, is unleashing the American economy.

The unemployment rate has fallen to 3.9 percent – a low not seen since 2000. Since Election Day, the economy has added 3.3 million new jobs and wages are rising.

The president’s actions rejected the misguided narrative that we must choose between protecting the environment and growing the economy. That is a false choice. And it is inconsistent with America’s environmental track record. We can do both, and we have done both – better than any other nation, in fact.

The president’s actions rejected the misguided narrative that we must choose between protecting the environment and growing the economy. That is a false choice. And it is inconsistent with America’s environmental track record.

From 2000 to 2014, we reduced our carbon dioxide footprint by more than 7 percent. More recently, the Energy Information Administration projects that from 2010 to 2018 total U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are falling by nearly 7 percent. In contrast, global emissions are increasing by 10 percent.

We have also made incredible strides improving air quality throughout the nation over the past several decades. Since 1970, total emissions of the six criteria air pollutants regulated under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards established through the Clean Air Act have dropped 73 percent.

These achievements are attributed largely to American innovation, such as highly effective pollution-control equipment, advanced production technologies, and increasingly efficient practices across all sectors of our economy.

It is the genius of the free market, not burdensome government mandates, that has delivered this unrivaled accomplishment.

The previous administration threatened to derail this progress through regulatory overreach. But President Trump’s actions ensure that we will continue to promote America’s energy independence and economic growth, while also protecting the environment.

Under the commitments made by the prior administration, the Paris Agreement was estimated to put at risk as many as 2.7 million American jobs by 2025, according to NERA Economic Consulting.

At the same time, the Paris Agreement imposed no serious emissions reduction obligations on China or India for many years. On top of this, the Paris Agreement would also require the United States to contribute billions of American taxpayer dollars in the coming years, with no clear benefit to hardworking Americans.

President Trump understood that this was a bad deal for the American people.

The president’s actions declared to the world that this administration will put the American people first. The days of Washington prioritizing the interests of other countries over the interests of the American people are over.

Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, the Environmental Protection Agency has refocused on its core responsibilities of protecting human health and the environment.

We are making tremendous progress on these fronts, including working cooperatively with states to improve air quality throughout the country, accelerating the cleanup of contaminated lands in the Superfund program, and incentivizing repairs to the nation’s water infrastructure.

Our booming economy and improved environment are a uniquely American success story that should be recognized, celebrated, and replicated around the world. We owe no apologies to other nations for our environmental stewardship.

President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement was one of the earliest indications of his commitment to put America first. From regulatory reforms to tax relief, the president continues to take decisive action on behalf of hardworking Americans. America is stronger today because of President Trump’s actions.

SOURCE 




British Offshore Windfarm Will Cost £2.5 Billion In Subsidies

A single offshore wind farm is set to cost £2.5 billion in subsidies over its 20 year life-span, shocking figures reveal.

Newly constructed Rampion wind farm, off the Sussex coast, consists of 116 turbines.

The project’s HQ was opened this week by hard-hat-toting Maria Caulfield MP.

Guido wonders whether she is aware the project is a black hole for bill payer’s money…

According to analysis by the Global Warming Policy Forum, the project will qualify for about £126 million a year in public subsidies over two decades (under legacy arrangements made before the cancellation of the Renewables Obligation).

Furthermore:

“The wholesale price of the electricity will only add about another £60 million a year, so roughly two thirds of the annual income of the project will be non-market public support.”

The return on the huge investments involved will mostly come from the public purse, not from selling electricity…

Moreover, an equivalent investment in gas-fired power plants could generate three times as much energy, subsidy-free. And they work all the time, on demand…

SOURCE 





BMW, Daimler Struggle As Europe’s CO2 Plans At Risk Of Coming Undone

European plans to tackle vehicle emissions that cause climate change are at risk of coming undone, sending car manufacturers such as Daimler and BMW back to the drawing board to avoid potential fines.

A series of events over the past weeks have highlighted the region’s struggle to contain greenhouse gases and air pollution, wrong-footing automakers including BMW and Volkswagen Group that remain reliant on engines running on diesel.

“It’s safe to say our original premises and plans to meet fleet emissions goals are good for the bin,” said Dieter Zetsche, CEO of Daimler. “We think we can meet them still, but it’s not totally up to us but depends on how the customer decides to act.”

Policies to lower emissions were clouded by the revelation last month by the EU that the amount of carbon dioxide produced by new cars rose last year, reversing at least seven years of steady decline of the greenhouse gas in many countries. A further sign of cracks in the system was the bloc’s decision to resort to suing Germany and five other member states for exceeding air pollution limits.

Finally, in a direct blow to automakers, Hamburg became the first German city to impose driving restrictions on some cars running on diesel — a fuel that produces less CO2 than gasoline but more harmful air pollutants.

If manufacturers fail to comply with emissions rules, they are at risk of projected fines of 4.5 billion euros ($5.3 billion), according to study by PA Consulting.

The root of the European problem over emissions can mostly be traced to Volkswagen’s diesel cheating scandal that erupted in 2015 and caused consumers to shun vehicles running on the fuel partly because of fears they would be outlawed.

A landmark German court decision in February allowed bans in principle, causing people to give up diesel even faster despite offers from automakers to clean up older models and take back cars in the event of restrictions.

Diesel’s collapse has upended a core plank in the EU’s strategy to lower greenhouse gases: namely to encourage, at least in the short-term, use of the engine technology because it burns hydrocarbons more efficiently than gasoline, thereby cutting carbon emissions.

That policy stemmed from a successful lobbying effort by automakers in Europe for incentives to make diesel cheaper after the 1997 signing of the global Kyoto protocol climate change agreement, which required signatories to commit to cutting CO2. Manufacturers like BMW, VW and Daimler sought to capitalize on their engineering prowess in diesel technology, while other countries, like Japan, backed research into hybrid and electric cars.

SOURCE 




New Scientific Evidence Robustly Affirms Scandinavian Temperatures Were 3-4°C Warmer 9000 Years Ago

Because trees may only grow within narrowly-defined temperature ranges and elevations above sea level, perhaps the most reliable means of assessing the air temperatures of past climates is to collect ancient treeline evidence.  In a new paper, Kullman (2018) found tree remnants at mountain sites 600 to 700 meters higher than where the modern treeline ends, strongly implying Early Holocene air temperatures in northern Sweden were 3-4°C warmer than recent decades.

Kullman, 2018:

“The present paper reports results from an extensive project aiming at improved understanding of postglacial subalpine/alpine vegetation, treeline, glacier and climate history in the Scandes of northern Sweden. The main methodology is analyses of mega fossil tree remnants, i.e. trunks, roots and cones, recently exposed at the fringe of receding glaciers and snow/ice patches. This approach has a spatial resolution and accuracy, which exceeds any other option for tree cover reconstruction in high-altitude mountain landscapes.”

“All recovered tree specimens originate from exceptionally high elevations, about 600-700 m atop of modern treeline positions.”
“Conservatively drawing on the latter figure and a summer temperature lapse rate of 0.6 °C per 100 m elevation (Laaksonen 1976), could a priori mean that, summer temperatures were at least 4.2 °C warmer than present around 9500 year before present.

However, glacio-isostatic land uplift by at least 100 m since that time (Möller 1987; Påsse & Anderson 2005) implies that this figure has to be reduced to 3.6 °C higher than present-day levels, i.e. first decades of the 21st century. Evidently, this was the warmth peak of the Holocene, hitherto.”

“This inference concurs with paleoclimatic reconstructions from Europe and Greenland (Korhola et al. 2002; Bigler et al. 2003; Paus 2013; Luoto et al. 2014; Väliranta et al. 2015).”

SOURCE 




Retiring more nuclear plants could hurt Mass. climate goals

A reality check: Last year, solar panels and wind turbines generated less than 5 percent of the utility-scale electricity generated in Massachusetts. That’s despite consistent state support for renewable power for the last two decades, and the amazing growth of renewables in windier and sunnier states. Most of the state’s zero-carbon electricity instead comes from nuclear power — specifically, the aging Pilgrim and Seabrook nuclear power plants.

Nuclear’s role in meeting New England’s greenhouse gas goals is underappreciated, but the numbers are sobering: When the 680 megawatt Pilgrim reactor closes next year, it will remove in one day more zero-emission electricity production than all the new windmills and solar panels Massachusetts has added over the last 20 years. That big offshore wind farm that the state wants built in the waters off Southeastern Massachusetts? The $2 billion project could have made inroads against fossil fuels. Instead, those turbines will just be filling, on windy days, the hole that will be left after Pilgrim’s closure.

Massachusetts has anointed itself a leader on tackling climate change. But other states, including Connecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey, have set the pace when it comes to the politically difficult steps needed to save the nuclear industry, which is still the source of most of the country’s zero-emission electricity. Massachusetts needs to catch up. Pilgrim may be a lost cause, but by adjusting its policies now, the state could help prevent the larger 1,250 megawatt reactor at Seabrook in New Hampshire from meeting the same fate.

The existing support for low-emission sources, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, has shown that it’s too modest to do the job. The multistate cap-and-trade program is designed to reduce emissions by putting a price on carbon dioxide, effectively giving nonemitting sources a competitive advantage. But it wasn’t enough to save Pilgrim, and it hasn’t been enough to stop planned or previous nuclear closures in other member states, including Vermont and New York.

Another way to backstop nuclear is via an expansion of the state’s new clean energy standard, a new policy that requires utilities to obtain a more of their electricity from low-emission sources in Massachusetts or nearby jurisdictions. The utilities would be required to buy credits from low-emission electricity producers. Right now, those sources must have started operating after 2010 to qualify. But the Baker administration is considering pushing the requirement back to 1990, the year that Seabrook opened. That would allow the plant to make money by selling those credits.

That might be a tough sell — partly because of decades of fearmongering about nuclear power, and partly because state officials fear making ratepayers pay for a source that might stay in business anyway. Seabrook’s owners have not indicated any plans to close the plant, and its larger size should make it more economically viable than Pilgrim.

But without intervention, the writing is on the wall for nuclear power. Five nuclear plants have closed over the last few years, hammered by competition from cheap natural gas. More closures are planned. Natural gas is expected to remain at rock-bottom prices for decades. That’s been good for consumers and the environment, since the low prices have also pushed many coal and oil-burning plants out of business, but it does call for a policy solution to help nuclear survive.

To some environmental groups, nothing short of 100 percent renewable power will ever be acceptable. But that’s putting ideology ahead of emissions. If the state were to rule out supporting nuclear — or other low-emission options, like fossil fuel plants with carbon capture, a technology that has already been proven in Massachusetts — that choice would commit the state to an expensive future and a real risk of failure.

Massachusetts doesn’t have favorable onshore wind and sun conditions; offshore wind has more potential, but is years away. Importing ever-increasing amounts of hydropower from Canada is an option, and the state is also pursuing a power line through Maine in a separate procurement, but the northern New England states seem to be running out of patience with Massachusetts’ transmission demands.

So why make the state’s reduction goals harder to reach than they already are? To keep the region’s climate goals achievable, policy makers should ensure that Pilgrim is the last nuclear power plant that New England loses.

SOURCE 

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************

Since Mr Trump walked out of the Paris agreement one year ago, it has been fascinating to watch the decline of media interest in “saving the planet”.

Donald Trump imposed punitive tariffs on steel imports exactly a year after he announced that the US would withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement. The two decisions are unrelated, except that both reflect the character of his presidency.

President Trump looks at any international arrangement on any subject – Iran, North Korea, trade, climate – and asks himself whether it is a good deal for America. If he thinks it is not, he starts making trouble. He loves a deal but, unlike some politicians on this side of the water, he sees no point in a bad deal.

When President Trump starts the trouble, he does not necessarily know where it will end. He is, if you like, open-minded; or, if you don’t like, irresponsible. He just wants a result, and will pull back if he thinks he won’t get the right one. In the case of his trade war, he will succeed if his action exposes unfair practices by trade rivals and forces them to change. He will fail if all he does is put up everyone’s prices, including, of course, America’s.

In the case of the Paris process, he has succeeded almost without trying. The answer to the question, “Which major country in the world has most successfully reduced its CO2 emissions?” is, “The United States of America”. US emissions hit a 25-year low last year. This success has nothing to do with the UN caravan, which has rolled on for 30 years, or, indeed, with Mr Trump. It has everything to do with the shale revolution – the triumph of much cleaner fossil fuels. Energy prices are falling.

By contrast, the greenest of the great economic powers, Germany and Japan, have poured money into renewables. They are consuming more coal than before, however, with Japan planning 36 new coal-fired power stations over the next 10 years. Since renewables are not reliable (because of intermittency), Germany must have more coal or lie prostrate before Mr Putin and his gas. Both Germany and Japan are increasing their carbon footprint because they have run away from nuclear. Energy prices are rising. China, after a slowdown, is increasing its CO2 emissions fast once again.

As for “Paris”, this is failing, chiefly for the reason that poorer countries won’t decarbonise unless richer ones pay them stupendous sums. The amount supposedly required to do this, agreed at the Copenhagen conference in 2009, was $100 billion a year, every year, from 2020; but no mechanism could be devised to compel the poor countries to restrict their emissions. At yet another conference in the process, in Bonn last month, the parties broke up without agreement on handing the money across. It is almost impossible to imagine real agreement, because it would be unenforceable.

If you look back, you can see that Copenhagen was the first ebbing of climate panic. Gordon Brown, then prime minister, told us that we had “50 days” to avoid catastrophe. Prince Charles warned delegates that “our planet has reached a point of crisis and we have only seven years before we lose the levers of control”. President Barack Obama, burnished by his freshly awarded Nobel Peace Prize, flew in. Yet all these great men failed to persuade the wretched of the earth to abandon their right to economic growth. “With your pens, you can write our future,” said HRH. The developing countries had the wit not to sign all the same.

Perhaps if Copenhagen had taken place before the global credit crunch of 2008, the world would have swallowed anything. The great paradox of greenery is that it is a boom phenomenon: only when a society is awash with dosh does it start believing it wouldn’t mind getting poorer. By December 2009, however, the dosh had evaporated.

The Paris conference of 2015 put a brave face on the failure of Copenhagen, by parading an agreement. But as the agreement was non-binding, and permitted countries to determine their progress on CO2 reductions unilaterally, it did not alter the reality. The whole UN process originated in the belief that global warming could be prevented only by a global solution. It never found that solution, and so, at Paris, was hoist with its own petard.

The Prince of Wales was proved wrong in 2016, when the “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse” that he had predicted did not show up. Yet he spoke truer than he knew when he made that warning about losing the levers of control. The global warmists lost those levers – if they ever had them – after Paris.

Mr Trump noticed this and felt free to walk away. US participation in the Paris arrangements formally ends the day after the next US presidential election. It will be a brave Democrat who campaigns for the White House on a “Let’s stay in” ticket. What’s in it, after all, for America?

Since Mr Trump walked out, it has been fascinating to watch the decline of media interest in “saving the planet”. There was the most tremendous rumpus when he made his announcement, but the End-Of-The-World-Is-Nigh-Unless feeling that made headlines before Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris, and numerous other gatherings, has gone. This feeling was essential to achieve the “Everybody’s doing it, so we must do it” effect the organisers sought.

The media barely noticed the recent Bonn meeting. I doubt if they will get apocalyptic about the next big show, “COP24” in Katowice, Poland, this December. The Poles are among the nations emerging as “climate realists” – people with their own coal and a very strong wish not to depend on the Russians. Climate-change zealotry is looking like CND after the installation of cruise and Pershing missiles in the 1980s – a bit beside the point.

None of this means that activism will disappear. There will be strong anti-American campaigns and moves to impose ESG (environmental, social and governance) investment principles to make the lives of fossil-fuel companies a misery. In Britain, energy bill levies to subsidise renewables will probably continue to ensure that Theresa May’s famous “just about managing” people are just about screwed simply because they want light and heat in their homes…

SOURCE 




No, We Are Not Running Out of Forests

Once nations hit around $4,500 GDP per capita, forest areas begin to increase

Recently on the BBC, Deborah Tabart from the Australian Koala Foundation noted that “85 per cent of the world’s forests are now gone.” Luckily this statement is incorrect.

Moreover, due to afforestation in the developed world, net deforestation has almost ceased. I’m sure that Tabart had nothing but good intentions in raising environmental concerns, but far-fetched claims about the current state of the world’s forests do not help anyone. The record needs setting straight.

After searching for evidence to support Tabart’s claim, the closest source I could find is an article from GreenActionNews, which claims that 80 per cent of the earth’s forests have been destroyed. The problem with that claim is that according to the United Nations there are 4 billion hectares of forest remaining worldwide. To put that in perspective, the entire world has 14.8 billion hectares of land.

For 80 per cent of the forest area to have already been destroyed and for 4 billion hectares to remain, 135 per cent of the planet’s surface must have once been covered in forests. GreenActionNews’ claim not only implies that 5.2 billion hectares of deforestation occurred at sea, but that every bit of land on earth was once forested. Ancient deserts, swamps, tundra and grasslands make mockery of that claim.

Amusingly, GreenActionNews’ claims that “forest is unevenly distributed: the five most forest rich countries are the Russian Federation, Brazil, Canada, the United States of America and China.” Country size and forest area do not always correlate, but it is hardly “uneven” that the five largest countries also hold the world’s largest forest areas.

Anyhow, slightly more than 31 per cent of the world is covered in forest. The world does continue to lose forest area, but consider the rate and location of this loss. According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the annual rate of deforestation has more than halved since the 1990s. Between 2010 and 2015, the world has gained 4.3 million hectares of forest per year, while losing 7.6 million hectares of forest per year. That accounts for a net decrease of 0.08 percent of forest area each year.

Some argue this data is faulty, because the FAO defines forest area as including natural forests and tree plantations. But that criticism is illegitimate. The FAO makes it clear that “93 per cent of global forest area, or 3.7 billion hectares in 2015,” was natural forest. Natural forest area decreased at an average rate of 6.5 million hectares per year over the last five years, a reduction from 10.6 million hectares per year in the 1990s. Put differently, natural forest loss is declining by 0.059 percent per year and is heading towards zero.

The reason why most people labor under a misapprehension about the state of the world’s forests is that news stories often ignore afforestation. In about half of the world, there is net reforestation and, as Matt Ridley puts it, this isn’t happening despite economic development, but because of it.

The world’s richest regions, such as North America and Europe, are not only increasing their forest area. They have more forests than they did prior to industrialization. The United Kingdom, for example, has more than tripled its forest area since 1919. The UK will soon reach forest levels equal to those registered in the Domesday Book, almost a thousand years ago.

It is not just rich nations that are experiencing net reforestation. The “Environmental Kuznets curve” is an economic notion that suggests that economic development initially leads to environmental deterioration, but after a period of economic growth that degradation begins to reverse.

Once nations hit, what Ridley dubs the “forest transition,” or approximately $4,500 GDP per capita, forest areas begin to increase. China, Russia, India, Vietnam and Bangladesh are just some of the nations that have hit this forest transition phase and are experiencing net afforestation.

Poor people can’t afford to care about the environment very much, because other priorities – such as survival – are more important. If that means that a rare animal must be killed and eaten, so be it. “The environment is a luxury good,” says Tim Worstall of the Adam Smith Institute, “it’s something we spend more of our income upon, as incomes rise.”

A recent study from the University of Helsinki highlights that between 1990 and 2015, annual forest area grew in high and mid-income nations by 1.31 per cent and 0.5 per cent respectively, while decreasing by 0.72 per cent in 22 low income countries.

The Kuznets curve not only applies to forest area, but also biodiversity. Ridley gives the example of three apex predators: wolves that live in developed countries of Europe and North America, tigers who mainly inhabit mid-income India, Russia and Bangladesh, and lions, which live in poor Sub-Saharan Africa. Following the Kuznets curve, wolf numbers are rapidly increasing, tiger numbers have been steady for the last 20 years (and have just began to increase), while lion numbers continue to fall.

To encourage reforestation and environmental protection, the answer is a simple one – adopt economic policies that encourage rapid development and urbanisation. As people grow rich and move to the cities, more money becomes available for environmental protection and more land can be returned to nature.

Thankfully Tabart’s claim was wrong and historically unprecedented poverty alleviation that has occurred in the last 50 years means that more countries are increasing their forest area. Yearly net deforestation is fast approaching zero and according to current trends, within the next couple of decades net afforestation will be the norm. This tremendous news is something to truly shout from the treetops.

SOURCE 




Japanese Meteorological Agency Corrects Antarctic’s Long-Term Sea Ice Growth Trend Upwards

The Global Environment and Marine Department of the Japanese Meteorological Agency recently corrected the long term trend in the annual mean sea ice extent in the Antarctic area: from 0.015 x 106 km2 per year to 0.019 x 106 km2 per year on 11 May 2018.

That’s more than a 25% adjustment (15,000 sq. km to 19,000 sq km). So while chunks the size of Manhattans may break off from time to time, about 300 Manhattans of new ice gets added annually.

The report notes that in the Antarctic Ocean: “the annual maximum and annual mean sea ice extents have shown a long-term trend of increase since 1979”.

The Japanese weather and climate site provided the following 2 charts showing sea ice extent for both the Arctic and Antarctic respectively since 1979. From them we see some interesting developments.

Arctic downward trend halted

Although the Arctic has seen a downward trend over the past 4 decades, we note that the mean Arctic sea ice cover has remained mostly steady over the past 11 years (since 2007). Moreover, Arctic and Greenland ice volume have piled up recently.

SOURCE 






The Reason Liberal Lawmakers Are to Blame for High Gas Prices

With consumer confidence at a 17-year high and economic prospects looking relatively strong, congressional Democrats have taken to grousing about the gas pump as a midterm strategy.

“These higher oil prices are translating directly to soaring gas prices,” declared Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, “something we know disproportionately hurts middle- and lower-income people.”

If this is true, then why have Democrats spent the past two decades advocating policies that artificially spike fossil fuel prices? If higher energy costs hurt Americans—and thank you, senator, for conceding this point—why have liberals favored increasing gas taxes, inhibiting exploration for fossil fuels (including a ban on fracking for less environmentally damaging gas in a number of places), and capping imports?

If higher gas prices disproportionately impact the working class and poor, then why do Democrats push for national schemes designed to create false demand through a fabricated marketplace?

Not a single reporter asked the Democrats who were performing at a press conference in front of an Exxon filling station the other day if higher gas prices might incentivize Americans to switch to subsidized “alternative” energy sources—even though this happens to be the prevailing theory driving much of their energy policy. Shouldn’t Democrats be celebrating the fact that fewer Americans were driving on Memorial Day? I thought we were facing an apocalyptic situation here.

Schumer conveniently blamed the United States’ exiting of the Iran nuclear deal for the spike—an agreement he supposedly opposed. Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz, a self-styled “climate hawk,” claimed, “There’s a straight line between [President Donald] Trump’s policies and the price of gasoline.” We can only now assume he believes the prevalence of cheap fossil fuels is imperative in the effort to alleviate poverty and create wealth. I concur. But don’t worry about Iran, senator; there’s plenty of oil elsewhere.

Politico maintains that Democrats have stolen a page from the “GOP playbook to attack Trump,” which is true, though the difference is that Republicans generally support proposals that make gas more affordable.

The Obama administration, for example, benefited greatly from a recalcitrant GOP Congress’ committed obstruction of an untold number of terrible initiatives. We should recall that the energy secretary openly wrestled with ways “to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

When Obama was asked in 2008 if the $4-a-gallon gas prices at the time were beneficial for the American economy, the presidential candidate prevaricated, saying, “I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.”

What is the gradual adjustment Democrats prefer today? A slow and steady move to $7? Right now U.S. gas prices are only a fraction of those in European nations, and yet Democrats acted as if Trump had triggered Armageddon when he decided to leave the Paris climate agreement. Do you want us to follow Norway’s lead or not?

Democrats had opposed the opening of pipeline projects, of new drilling, and allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to transform from a regulatory agency that was protecting the environment to a place where the administration could implement backdoor legislation that American voters had rejected. If Democrats hadn’t lost power in 2010, we might be living with those $4-per-gallon prices today.

To understand how this policy manifests, just look at California, where gas prices are consistently among the highest in the nation—despite the fact that there are no constraining geographic or economic impediments to cheap energy. Last year, the legislature pushed through another gas tax (and an even larger one on diesel) and extra “fees” to help make one of the most regressive energy policies in the country even more onerous and expensive.

Now, obviously the entire spectacle is for show. Schumer says, “It’s time for the president to buck his oil executive buddies,” because lots of ignorant voters probably believe that the price of crude oil can be controlled by a few nefarious CEOs. The only question I have is: Why don’t these profitmongering oligarchs keep prices high all the time?

Of course, in the real world, summertime typically brings a spike in prices—and despite Schumer’s forecast of “soaring gas prices,” prices are already dropping again.

Given the fungibility of commodities and the track record of the Middle East, we’ll likely always have to deal with some painful fluctuations in the price of energy, regardless of what we do at home. But relying on market forces has, by every conceivable measurement, had a better track record than price controls.

So while Democrats have learned to be less open with their intentions, the policies speak for themselves. What do they plan on doing about oil prices when they win the election? Yell at some executives? Why doesn’t anyone with access ask these concerned senators if they believe cheap fossil fuels are preferable? Or do they still support policies that spike energy prices on purpose?

SOURCE 




Speculative climate chaos v. indisputable fossil fuel benefits

Federal judge tells climate litigants to tally the numerous blessings from fossil fuels since 1859

Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek

Judge William Alsup has a BS in engineering, has written computer programs for his ham radio hobby, delves deeply into the technical aspects of numerous cases before him, and even studied other programming languages for a complex Oracle v. Google lawsuit.

As presiding judge in People of the State of California v. BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell, he insisted that the litigants present their best scientific evidence for and against the state’s assertion that fossil fuel emissions are causing dangerous climate change. Now he wants to see, not just the alleged damages from burning oil, natural gas and coal – but also the immense benefits to humanity and the people of California from using those fuels for the past 150 years and more.

Environmental and climate activists, including cities pursuing climate lawsuits against oil companies, almost never acknowledge those benefits, which are far-reaching and indisputable. We can only hope attorneys Anne Champion, Philip Curtis, Diehl Kemper, et al. and friends of the court will do justice to the many blessings attributable to our use of these once unimaginable energy resources.

For countless millennia, our ancestors struggled to survive amid deprivation and backbreaking dusk-to-dawn labor, often on the brink of starvation – with the bulk of humanity living little better than their domesticated animals. Average nasty, brutish and short life expectancy hovered in the low thirties.

But then, suddenly and miraculously, in barely two centuries, health, prosperity and longevity began to climb. First coal, then oil, then natural gas paved the way, providing the fuels for transportation, communication, refrigeration, electricity and other incredible technologies that improve, enhance, safeguard and save lives. Incomes increased eleven-fold. Mass die-offs so confidently predicted by Malthus and Ehrlich never materialized. In fact, global life spans more than doubled, and today billions of people enjoy living standards that even kings and queens could not dream of 120 years ago.

Sadly, equal numbers of people still struggle on the edge of survival. A billion and a half are still without electricity, two billion still exist on a few dollars a day, and millions still die every year from insect-borne, lung and intestinal diseases – largely because they still burn wood and dung, instead of fossil fuels.

In 1900, New York City’s 3.4 million people relied on 100,000 horses whose “tailpipes” emitted 2.5 million pounds of manure and 60,000 gallons of urine every day. Sanitation crews cleaned it up, dumped it mostly in local rivers, and hauled dead horses to rendering plants. Farmers devoted thousands of acres just to growing horse feed. Imagine what today’s 8.6 million NYC residents would require and emit.

Today, far more powerful, far less polluting, trucks, cars, buses, trains, subways and airplanes move people, food and products far more quickly and efficiently. They take us to work, school and worship services; to the grocery, bank, drug store, doctor and restaurant; to movies, picnics and sporting events. Fire trucks help us battle devastating conflagrations, and ambulances take our injured to hospitals.

All these vehicles (internal combustion and electric) exist because of, are fueled by – and travel on roadways made with fossil fuels: asphalt from oil, metal and concrete manufactured using fossil fuels.

Even electric cars require oil, gas and coal for manufacturing and recharging. Indeed, the earth-moving machines, drilling rigs and production platforms, pipelines, foundries, factories and other technologies needed to extract, process and fabricate raw materials into the world around us exist because of fossil fuels. Every bit of metal, plastic, concrete, wood, fabric and food we see results from fossil fuels. Even wind turbines, solar panels and biofuels are impossible without the fuels that California so loves to hate.

Medical devices, computers, cell phones, radios and televisions, kitchen appliances, household and office heating and air conditioning, millions of other products of every description require fossil fuels for their components, manufacturing and daily operation. The schools and research laboratories that made our amazing technologies and other advancements possible are themselves made possible by fossil fuels.

The modern agricultural equipment and practices that feed the world share the same ancestry: tractor and harvester fuel, ammonia fertilizer from natural gas, pesticides and herbicides from petrochemicals. Carbon dioxide from burning these fuels helps crop, forage, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, with less water and better resistance to droughts and diseases. Our bounteous grain and other crops mean fewer famines, except where forced starvation is used to subdue and eliminate enemies.

Indeed, between 1961 and 2011, the total monetary value of CO2 enhancement for 45 crops reached an estimated cumulative value of $3.2 trillion! Carbon dioxide’s annual enrichment value rose from $19 billion in 1961 to $140 billion in 2010. Between 2012 and 2050, these benefits will total $9.8 trillion!

Pharmaceutical and cosmetic products all have their roots in petrochemicals – as do paints, synthetic fibers and plastics. Hockey and football players are dressed head to toe in fossil-fuel-sourced materials.

High-rise office and residential buildings made possible by steel and concrete allow our cities to grow upward, instead of just outward, preserving millions of acres of wildlife habitats and scenic areas.

Then there’s electricity. Look around you, and try to imagine your life without this wondrous, pervasive energy source. Electricity was properly ranked humanity’s second most significant innovation of the past 6,000 years, after the printing press! It has created, shaped, defined and powered the modern world, and facilitated virtually every technological achievement of the past century. Electrification of nations is undeniably the world’s most significant engineering and life-enhancing achievement of the past century.

Economic growth, quality of life and longevity are directly correlated to sufficient, reliable, affordable electricity. In today’s world, nothing happens without it: communication, transportation and research; the operation of every home, office, hospital, factory and airport; refrigeration to preserve food and medicine; heating and air conditioning to save lives and enable people to survive and prosper in any climate.

Electrification will be increasingly important in the 21st century, and world electricity consumption is forecast to double within four decades, as electricity supplies an increasing share of the world’s ever-increasing energy demand. Fossil fuels will continue generating at least 75% of electricity, even in 2050.

Hydroelectric and nuclear (which radical environmentalists also despise and oppose), a bit of geothermal, and a smattering of unreliable, weather-determined wind and solar power will supply the rest. The land, resource and environmental impacts of building and operating wind and solar must also be considered.

Social media and internet search engines (to run biased searches for alarmist climate news) also depend on electricity – 91.4% of which was generated by fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro in 2016 in the USA.

Increased productivity generated by all these technologies creates the leisure time and wealth that enable everyone to enjoy evenings, weekends and holidays – and the fossil fuel transportation to go places (including to faraway, exotic locales and 5-star hotels for IPCC climate change confabs).

Finally, aside from nuclear-powered ships, our highly mechanized military gets there “the fastest with the mostest” thanks to fossil fuels, to combat terrorism and provide for our national defense.

Judge Alsup’s case is thus really about highly speculative manmade climate disasters versus indisputable fossil fuel benefits – as further documented here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and elsewhere. Indeed, today’s undeniable fossil fuel benefits outweigh any hypothesized climate, sea level and other costs by literally orders of magnitude: at least 50:1 to more than 200:1.

Barring major efficiency, battery storage and other technology improvements, renewable energy cannot possibly replace fossil fuels. Judge Alsup has no choice but to rule in favor of the oil company defendants … and all who rely on oil, gas and coal for the countless, life-enhancing benefits barely touched on here.

Via email

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************

UK weather: May 2018 hottest since records began in UK

You have to be alert to catch slippery Warmists out.  Just one word gives the game away below.  The con is that the figure quoted is the daily average MAXIMUM temperature which does not make "May 2018 hottest since records began". You need to know the MINIMUM daily figures as well to calculate the MEAN daily temperature.  Without knowing the minima, May could in fact have been unusually cool!

The provisional daily average maximum temperature for May 2018 was 17C. Last month was the warmest May since records began more than 100 years ago, the Met Office has said.

According to provisional figures, May 2018 saw an average daily maximum temperature of 17C (63F). It would beat the previous May record of 16.9C set in 1992.

The Met Office said spring 2018, which ran from March to May, had been "very dynamic with many fluctuations". But the period was 0.3C higher than the average between 1981 and 2010.

Across the UK, the average May temperature was 1.5C above the long-term 1981-2010 average at 11.9C.

SOURCE 






Congress helped create the domestic rare earth minerals shortage—and now it can fix it

Last week an unknown Chinese phone company, ZTE, was thrust into the spotlight because of ongoing trade negations and sanctions talk. Members of the Senate and House were up in arms because President Trump was in discussions to lift or modify the sanctions on the Chinese government-linked company. There is no doubt the company’s equipment poses a national security threat, but no one is asking the question how.

Last week, the Senate Banking Committee approved legislation 23-2 blocking the Trump administration from easing sanctions on ZTE, the aforementioned Chinese phone company, for national security reasons.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) stated, “Most members of Congress have come to understand the threat China poses. There’s a growing commitment in Congress to do something about what China is trying to do to the United States. And this is a good place to start.”

When asked about President Trump possibly making a deal with China and ZTE, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stated, “This seems to be an area where Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate are coming together and telling the president, you’ve got to be tough on China, you have to have your actions match your rhetoric.”

What the Senate is ignoring or doesn’t know, is it played a rather large part in creating the problem with ZTE.

Not a peep about the reason China dominates the technology manufacturing industry from either side of the aisle in the Senate. It seems both Senators forget the core problem. Yes, communications equipment made in China is probably being used as spying devices and should not be trusted, but environmentalist regulators have made it next to impossible to mine the rare earth elements (REEs) needed to make the equipment in the U.S.

REEs are a group of 15 elements between atomic numbers 57 and 71 that have unusual physical and chemical properties, giving them multiple applications in the defense industry and civilian market.

The U.S. military is wholly dependent on rare earth minerals for a large assortment of weapons systems. The smart weapons that allow the military to use one bomb for one target while reducing collateral damage use guidance systems. The motors and fin actuators that steer the weapons use rare earth elements, specifically neodymium magnets.

Not only do REEs play a key role in national defense, but they also play an irreplaceable role in the modern communications industry. A single iPhone contains eight different rare-earth metals. The speakers, screen, and vibration feature would not work without rare earth elements. The elements are also used in televisions, computers, light bulbs, and catalytic converters. It is not a stretch to say rare earth elements are the foundation of our modern society.

China has used excessively harsh regulations in the U.S. to corner the rare earth market. China refuses to export the material, forcing the companies to relocate to the mainland for manufacture. This is how China came to dominate the electronics manufacturing market. The market for rare earth elements is only expected to reach $10.9 billion in 2020, and China turned it into a technology manufacturing industry valued at $4.8 trillion.

As the Senate rushes to the nearest TV crew to complain about something the President is doing, House of Representatives isn’t just standing by. There are several bills in the House dealing with the rare earth element issue, including Rep. Amoedi’s amendment to the recently passed House NDAA, H.Amdt. 647 to H.R. 5515.

Thankfully for the security and economic power of the nation, the Amodei amendment passed the NDAA in the House. The amendment tackles the rare earth problem by:

Requiring federal agencies to more efficiently develop domestic sources of strategic and critical minerals and mineral materials on federal lands;

Facilitating a timely permitting process for mineral exploration and mine development projects by clearly defining the responsibilities of a lead agency and reducing duplicative processes without compromising existing environmental standards; and

Streamlining the total review process for issuing permits to 30 months unless signatories to the permitting timeline agree to an extension.

The amendment passed with bipartisan support showing the House understands the problem. Now if the camera hogging Senate wanted to show it was truly serious about the danger of Chinese telecommunications equipment, it should easily pass the same amendment in the Senate version of the NDAA.

SOURCE 





Claim: London could run out of WATER in decades thanks to climate change and population rise

The basic point is that warming oceans would give off MORE rain -- so London should pray for global warming to happen.  There is no way that warming could produce more droughts

Another day, another climate scare. This time it’s not enough rain, or – believe it or not – ‘climate change’ bringing the wrong kind of rain, to London as the Evening Standard reports.

Millions of extra litres of drinking water must be sourced to stop parts of London running dry over the coming decades, Thames Water has warned.

It said that unless we change our consumption habits, some 250 million more litres will need to be pumped into the capital each day.

With London’s 8.8 million population due to hit 11 million by 2050, customers are being asked to “consider different ways they can reduce demand”, such as using water-reducing shower heads.

Thames Water said that without changing our lifestyles “there would be shortages, low pressure and more instances of people having no water”.

Climate change is predicted to bring shorter, heavier bursts of rain, which run off from the ground and are not as reliable for filling up rivers. Climate change is also expected to cause more droughts.

SOURCE 




Some Of The Loudest Backers Of Paris Climate Accords Are Bucking The Agreement

June 1 marks the first anniversary of President Donald Trump’s having begun the process of withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate accord.

Foreign leaders immediately criticized the decision. German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the decision to leave “extremely regrettable,” while the prime minister of Denmark, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, called the move “a sad day for the world.”

Most nations that signed the Paris climate accords will soon fail to meet their agreement-defined deadlines for fossil fuel reduction. (Photo: baona/Getty Images)

Trump justified the withdrawal by calling the situation “the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries.”

Trump was wrong. The climate accord is not just a bad deal for the U.S., but for all of the developed countries that have committed to higher energy prices for minimal climate benefit.

It’s a bad deal for the developing world if these countries choose to deny their citizens affordable, reliable energy sources. Sure, some of these countries may receive money to build new renewable-energy generation, but mandating a shift away from natural resources that power 80 percent of the world is going to make them worse off.

Despite arguments to the contrary, Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is not about prioritizing the economy over the planet. Rather, the administration recognized that the climate accord is a costly non-solution, regardless of one’s position on climate change.

It’s no surprise that many countries are talking the climate talk, but not walking the walk. The true nature of the agreement has been revealed by the contradictory actions of other nations.

The wishful platitudes and ambitious goals of the Paris climate agreement have begun to meet the realities of a complex, energy-dependent world.

The stark reality is that healthier economies mean more energy use, and consequently, rising emissions (though not always).  When economies were in a slump, it was easier to commit to emissions reductions. When countries’ economies began to grow, many saw emissions rise.

Overall, global coal demand rose about 1 percent in 2017, largely because of Asian countries building more coal-fired electricity generation.

In fact, the Berlin-based organization Urgewald projects that 1,600 new coal-fired generating plants under construction or planned will result in 840,000 megawatts of new capacity.

Smaller, less developed countries have not been the only countries that have struggled to meet their emissions goals. Some nations, such as Turkey and Indonesia, have even expanded their use of coal power to satisfy growing energy needs.

Pakistan, in its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, quite bluntly stated, “Given the future economic growth and associated growth in the energy sector, the peaking of emissions in Pakistan is expected to take place much beyond the year 2030. An exponential increase of [greenhouse gas] emissions for many decades is likely to occur before any decrease in emissions can be expected.”

Even some of the most climate progressive nations on earth have struggled as well.

Germany, a world leader on climate action, has failed to cut emissions and has actually seen emissions rise during the past two years. Germany may even have to buy its way out of a binding European Union agreement to lower emissions in the coming years.

In Brazil, emissions in most sectors are expected to rise at least until 2030. In Japan, political issues with nuclear energy will likely cause the use of coal for energy to increase by 2030. Poland and South Korea also have plans for coal expansions.

Compliance with the Paris Agreement globally has been nothing short of dismal. In fact, most nations will soon fail to meet their agreement-defined deadlines.

Without enforcement, however, the agreement and any promises made by countries are meaningless. This is not a new revelation. While the Paris talks were first occurring in 2015, former NASA scientist and prominent climate activist James Hansen called the talks “a fraud,” contending: “There is no action, just promises.”

Many argue that Paris is just the first step. It seems as though much of the developed and developing worlds can’t even get the first step right.

The supposition that countries will stick with their respective targets leading up to 2030 and that post-Paris negotiations will lead to deep global de-carbonization of energy is a rather large and very generous assumption, if not purely wishful thinking.

The reality is that the Paris climate agreement is fundamentally flawed. This global commitment is nothing more than broken and empty promises.

SOURCE 





Chevron Wins $38M From Enviros Behaving Badly: Extortion, Fraud, Corruption

Score 1 for Chevron

In 2011, environmentalists won the world’s largest judgment against Chevron (holy moly $18 billion), but it turned out it was all based on fraud, fake witnesses and telling lies.

Who would think people who say they like trees and human rights would be so self-serving? The award has since been overturned — indeed the tables have turned, and last week Chevron was awarded $38 million in damages.

Strangely, bad behavior of planet-saving-people doesn’t appear to rate highly in the news. Hands up who thinks the BBC/ABC/CBC would fail to mention it if environmentalists won a $38m suit against a money-laundering-witness-tampering oil company?

Gibraltar Supreme Court Awards Chevron $38 Million Against Ecuadorian Conspirators:

The Supreme Court of Gibraltar has issued a judgment against Pablo Fajardo, Luis Yanza, Ermel Chavez, Frente de Defensa de la Amazonia (the “Front”) and Servicios Fromboliere for their role in a conspiracy to procure and attempt to enforce a fraudulent Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron.

The court awarded Chevron Corporation$38 million in damages and interest and issued a permanent injunction against the defendants, preventing them from assisting or supporting the case against Chevron in any way.

Donziger and Fajardo, an Ecuadorian lawyer, were found by a U.S. Federal Court to have engaged in extortion, money laundering, wire fraud, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. The Front, which has long been involved in peddling a dishonest public relations campaign against Chevron aimed at extorting a settlement from the company, and Servicios Fromboliere, an Ecuadorian law firm established by Fajardo, are both shareholders in Amazonia and part of the extensive web of obscure entities established by the participants in the fraud against Chevron to attempt to hide their misconduct and profit from it.

The backstory –thanks to The Daily Caller, and Tim Pearce

An Ecuador court issued an $18 billion judgement against Chevron in February 2011 for environmental and social harm the company allegedly caused to the Amazon. The amount was later reduced to $9.5 billion, but a U.S. district court in New York nullified the judgement due to fraudulent and illegal activities by Steven Donziger, the lead American lawyer behind the lawsuit, according to the district court ruling.

The New York district court found that while Donziger had initiated the case with good intentions, he corrupted the process through telling half-truths, outright lies, and using fake evidence and witnesses.

“If ever there were a case warranting equitable relief with respect to a judgment procured by fraud, this is it,” the district court ruling said.

SOURCE 

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************

2018 TORNADO ACTIVITY NEAR RECORD LOW…Hurricane Season Looks Weaker…

These are tough times for the US climate-ambulance chasers, who like to use every extreme-weather event as a God-sent sign the climate is going to hell in a handbasket.

Tornadoes AWOL, models contradicted

But even weather extremes aren’t cooperating with the climate predictions and models. For instance, yesterday meteorologist Joe Bastardi at Weatherbell noted that US tornado activity is near a record low so far this year.

And despite claims by some US alarmist agencies of record high global temperatures occurring year after year, tornado activity over the past decades has in fact been trending downward, and so stands in stark contrast to the media and climate alarmism hysteria of greater and more frequent weather extremes.

Moreover, a number of meteorologists are also hinting that the 2018 hurricane season could be weaker than normal, due to unusually cool tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures – especially off the west coast of Africa where many hurricanes are spawned.

For example, at Twitter Levi Cowan of Tropical Tidbits recently commented how the sea surface temperature anomaly off the coast of West Africa was “brutal”.

Tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are extremely low off the coast of Africa, which may dampen the hurricane formation.

Joe Bastardi also noted in his most recent Saturday Summary that the current pattern has been seen off and on before in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, and adds that “most of those seasons aren’t big hurricane seasons”.

When the Madden-Julian Oscillation enters phase 5 and 6 in June with cold sea surface temperatures off western Africa, it is indicative of lower accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) for the upcoming season, Bastardi suggests.

Currently, Bastardi has his ACE projection at 65 to 85% of normal. The veteran meteorologist does warn, however, of “in-close” development, where storms can form not far off US coast.

Indeed, it’ll be interesting to see how the upcoming hurricane season pans out in comparison to last year’s when conditions in the Atlantic were quite different.

Arctic “death spiral” in its death throes

And there’s more bad news for the climate ambulance chasers – at their beloved Arctic.

Japanese skeptic climate blogger Kirye  at Twitter recently tweeted that Arctic sea ice volume late this spring is at the 2nd highest level in 11 years!

As the Arctic has seen very warm surface temperatures over the past winter, the current elevated sea ice volume tells us that there’s much more behind the ice than surface temperatures. This is something we’ve been trying to tell alarmists for years.

Greenland adds 600 billion tonnes

Moreover, Greenland has added 600 billion tonnes of ice, Kirye shows.

So in summary, for the time-being climate alarmists will have to content themselves with insignificant weather anecdotes to keep their alarmism and climate quackery alive.

SOURCE 




At last a victory for Martha Boneta

A husband-and-wife real estate team accused of teaming up with environmental activists and government officials to interfere with a Virginia farmer’s business have reached a legal settlement with the farmer, according to court records.

Martha Boneta, who owns and operates the 64-acre Liberty Farm at the foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains in Paris, Virginia, sought damages from the real estate agents, her neighbors, in a lawsuit filed in Fauquier County Circuit Court.

Under the terms of the legal agreement, Boneta is not permitted to disclose the amount of money attached to the settlement. She sued the neighbors, Phillip and Patricia Thomas, for $2 million, court papers show.

Phillip Thomas owns Thomas & Talbot Real Estate, based in Middleburg, Virginia, and used to own Boneta’s Liberty Farm. His wife, Patricia, also is a lawyer admitted to the bar in Virginia. Their farm, Liberty Hall, is across the road from Liberty Farm.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

The Thomases are members of Piedmont Environmental Council, a nonprofit land trust headquartered in Warrenton, Virginia, that also was named in Boneta’s litigation. Their real estate company’s website identifies at least four other Thomas & Talbot agents associated with the land trust.

Council Said to Overstep Authority

Phillip Thomas did not reply to a request for comment.

Boneta, who spoke with The Daily Signal before the settlement was reached, had sued the Thomases for what she described as “malicious interference with her business” and “harassment.”

The lawsuit accused Piedmont Environmental Council of violating the terms of a conservation easement on Liberty Farm. Phillip and Patricia Thomas had entered into a joint agreement with the land trust related to the litigation.

Related: Farmer Turned Property Rights Activist Presses Court Fight With Green Group, Realtors

The idea behind conservation easements is for property owners to receive tax breaks in exchange for agreeing to restrict future development on a portion of their land.

As co-holders, Boneta’s easement lists the environmental council and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, which the state General Assembly chartered in 1966 to monitor easements and promote land conservation.

In her litigation, Boneta claimed the environmental council overstepped its authority under state law in monitoring and inspecting her property. She also said she never received tax breaks through the easement.

Boneta’s case against the environmental council, dismissed in January 2017 by the county’s circuit court, could still be heard on appeal before the Virginia Supreme Court.

In response to an inquiry from The Daily Signal, Diana Norris, the in-house attorney for Piedmont Environmental Council, said in an email that the land trust will continue to fight Boneta’s accusations.

The county court dismissed Boneta’s 2015 case in January 2017, Norris noted, while the state Supreme Court denied her appeal in July 2017. The county court on April 24 also dismissed Boneta’s 2016 lawsuit against the environmental council, she said, though Boneta filed a notice of appeal.

“PEC will continue to vigorously defend itself from the false allegations,” Norris said.

Boneta told The Daily Signal that her lawyers “made a technical error” in the appeal to the state Supreme Court and she is “weighing her options,” which include an appeal based on the merits.

Litigation ‘Exposed Collusion’

Boneta filed a separate but related suit against the Piedmont Environmental Council, arguing that the group knowingly and falsely said while selling the property to her that Confederate Gen. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson once camped on land that is now part of  Liberty Farm. That litigation remains active at the circuit court.

Related: Did ‘Stonewall’ Jackson Sleep Here? Farmer Sues Green Group Over Claim

Phillip Thomas, a fifth-generation landowner, previously owned Liberty Farm, which is across the street from his 20-acre farm called Liberty Hall.

Thomas transferred ownership of Liberty Farm to the Piedmont Environmental Council in December 2000 while maintaining ownership of Liberty Hall.

Boneta purchased Liberty Farm, also known as Paris Farm, from the environmental council for $425,000 in June 2006. The conservation easement was put in place simultaneously.

Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, said he views the settlement as a major turning point in the long, protracted legal battle.

“Martha Boneta’s yearslong litigation, undertaken at a huge financial and emotional cost, has exposed collusion involving public officials, radical environmentalists, and well-connected Realtors,” Cohen said in an email, adding:

For all the venality that has come to light, the whole exercise appears to have served the simple purpose of driving her off her land. By standing up to her well-heeled tormentors, she has shown how David can bring down Goliath. The lesson for farmers and other landowners is clear: Steer clear of conservation easements, because once you start surrendering your property rights, you are entrusting your future to people who don’t necessarily have your best interest at heart.

Boneta told The Daily Signal that her settlement with the Thomases could have reverberations across state lines.

“The lesson here is that you will pay a steep price for colluding with special interests to violate the property rights of average Americans,” Boneta said in a phone interview. “I want every American to never give up and to fight back against this type of abuse, no matter how long it takes. Stand your ground and justice will be served. We need land trust reform that will stop the corruption that is destroying property rights and hurting farmers.”

SOURCE 




Environmental red tape stalls border agents trying to fill drug-smuggler tunnels

Environmental laws delay filling of illicit border tunnels
Why some lawmakers and border patrol agents are frustrated over environmental laws that are delaying the filling of illicit border tunnels.

Environmental red tape is causing “long delays” for border agents as they try to fill tunnels used to smuggle people and dangerous drugs into the U.S. from Mexico, according to border officials and Republican lawmakers who have discussed the problem with agents.

Frustrated agents complain the lengthy federal review process can stall critical tunnel-plugging efforts for months after passageways are first discovered. 

The tunnels are being used to move people, illegal drugs and even fake pharmaceuticals. But regulations stemming from laws like the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are putting "remediation" on hold.

“I heard firsthand accounts from our Border Patrol agents that environmental red tape is hindering their ability to secure the border,” Utah Rep. Rob Bishop, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, told Fox News this week.

Tunnel Split

In February of 2015, agents discovered a sophisticated border tunnel the length of three football fields in the town of Naco, Arizona. The tunnel was outfitted with wooden supports and a cement shaft with a hydraulic lift.

Bishop, along with Arkansas GOP Rep. Bruce Westerman, traveled to the Arizona border in February to meet with border agents and discuss how environmental laws and regulations are impacting security. Bishop, who has legislation aimed at addressing these issues, said they learned of the "significant delay in remediating illicit tunnels," a process where they are filled with gravel and concrete.

A Customs and Border Protection official confirmed to Fox News they've encountered “long delays” in remediating tunnels, acknowledging environmental regulations make up a “good portion of the delay.”

The official said other delays come with “clearing out a tunnel, mapping out the tunnel underground to know where to remediate from above, getting funding for the remediation and fulfilling a contract to a construction company to carry out the remediation.”

One particularly protracted response revolved around a sophisticated border tunnel -- the length of three football fields -- discovered in the town of Naco, Ariz., in February 2015. Photos show the tunnel complete with wooden supports and a cement shaft with a hydraulic lift.

Fox News learned it took between nine months and a year before it was fully remediated. Agents were told it was because of environmental concerns.

While this played out during the Obama administration, officials say agents are still encountering these kinds of delays under the current administration.

“Border security should never take a backseat to the EPA, when you consider the dangerous drugs that come into this country, such as fentanyl," Brandon Judd, the president of the National Border Patrol Council, said in an interview. "That tunnel was assuredly used to bring fentanyl into this country, and other dangerous drugs. They don’t use tunnels like that simply to bring in illegal immigrants. They use those for their high-dollar products, such as illicit drugs.”

The tug-of-war over access to federal land has gone on for decades and flared frequently under the Obama administration. While border agents need to patrol that territory, several other agencies are tasked with protecting that land from human interference. Everything from moving surveillance equipment to improving a road can take months.

While Judd mentioned the EPA, the process actually involves a range of agencies – especially those within the Interior and Agriculture departments. A 2006 agreement with those departments gave border agents access to federal land under certain conditions. When Bishop raised this issue during the prior administration, the Interior Department stressed that the agencies work closely together – and that they have to balance security needs with environmental protection.

But delays in filling tunnels have become a source of frustration.

Judd said agents are frustrated when they have to "babysit" a tunnel during an environmental review because it takes up resources that could be used elsewhere.

Tunnels are most common in the San Diego sector, according to the Natural Resources Committee. But even the most seemingly simple tunnels to fix can take several months.

In 2014, according to the committee, San Diego Sector Border Patrol agents discovered a small tunnel that used a rail system to move items under the border into the United States.

The tunnel itself was nearly 4 feet, 6 inches high and 2 feet wide. It ran 2,500 feet in length and ran about 1,000 feet into the United States.

The area contained a small wetland. It took about four months to complete a bird study and fill in the tunnel.

The committee has cited that example as a “best-case scenario,” in comparison with other tunnels, where remediation has taken longer because of various regulations.

Other border tunnels discovered in the San Diego area have made news before. Last August, border agents arrested 30 illegal immigrants, including 23 Chinese nationals, outside a smuggling tunnel. The tunnel was near a border fence line, but was hidden by dry brush and branches. It's unclear whether there were any delays in filling that passageway.

Bishop is now pushing legislation to make the remediation of tunnels on federal lands -- and a range of other CBP activities -- exempt from the requirements of environmental laws, like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Bishop’s proposal, tucked into two border security bills, would specifically limit the power of the Interior and Agriculture departments to hinder border agents on the job. Neither department has responded to a request for comment from Fox News. 

“Our border patrol agents need the tools and authority to secure our Southern border, and without streamlining the bureaucracy, that won’t happen,” Bishop said.

SOURCE 




‘This Is a Job-Killing Regulation That Will Put Our Company Out of Business’: Some Push EPA to Reverse Obama-Era Regulation

When is a glider not a glider?  When it's a truck

Trucking industry interests successfully lobbied the Environmental Protection Agency to impose “job-killing” regulations on remanufactured vehicles known as gliders that are cheaper to purchase than new trucks, an energy policy analyst and a maker of the vehicles say.

Gliders range in size from medium to heavy trucks. They are constructed from “glider kits” that include new truck parts, such as the tractor chassis, with a frame, front axle, cab, and brakes. The glider is manufactured by combining the glider kit with a powertrain from a used vehicle.

While gliders include new truck parts, they should not be considered new trucks, since the engine and other parts are used, industry representatives have argued. Yet, the EPA under President Barack Obama issued a new rule reclassifying gliders as new trucks in October 2016.

This distinction matters because the Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions only from new trucks, not old ones. Most glider trucks cannot meet the emissions standards the Obama EPA imposed for new vehicles.

“This is a job-killing regulation that will put our company out of business,” Jon Toomey, director of government affairs for the Tennessee-based Fitzgerald Glider Kits, said in a phone interview with The Daily Signal.

“Based on the business we do with parts suppliers and family-run businesses, we estimate this Obama-era rule could cost 900 jobs in Tennessee and possibly 22,000 jobs across the country. We hope the rule can be reversed,” he said.

Toomey and Steve Milloy, a member of President Donald Trump’s EPA transition team, have identified the Volvo Group as the company that most aggressively lobbied the EPA to impose the new emissions standards against glider trucks.

In May 2016, Volvo Group submitted comments to the EPA expressing support for the imposition of new greenhouse gas regulations on glider trucks.

In testimony delivered before an EPA hearing last December, a Volvo public affairs official told agency officials that glider trucks had been permitted to “skirt” both emissions and safety regulations. The official also made the point that some glider kits are manufactured in Mexico, while every truck manufactured by Mack Trucks and Volvo is built in the U.S.

The glider market represents a very small percentage of the trucking industry, with between 5,000 and 7,000 sold annually, compared with 300,000 new trucks sold annually, Toomey estimates.

He also notes that gliders sell for about 25 percent less than what it costs to buy a new truck.

“We serve a vital interest for small, independent trucking operations,” Toomey said. “The EPA regulation would be devastating.”

Fitzgerald has joined with other glider truck manufacturers to call on the Trump administration to reverse the Obama rule.

While he’s concerned about the actions of “careerists” inside the EPA, Toomey says he is encouraged by steps taken by Scott Pruitt, Trump’s EPA administrator.

Pruitt issued a statement in November that said he would be working to “undo the regulatory overreach of the prior administration.” Because of the “unique way gliders are manufactured,” the EPA is now proposing that gliders not be regulated as new vehicles, Pruitt explained in his statement.

“The previous administration attempted to bend the rule of law and expand the reach of the federal government in a way that threatened to put an entire industry of specialized truck manufacturers out of business,” Pruitt said in his statement. “ … Gliders not only provide a more affordable option for smaller owners and operators, but also serve as a key economic driver to numerous rural communities.”

Tommy Fitzgerald, the owner and founder of Fitzgerald Glider Kits, expressed his gratitude toward the Trump administration for moving forward with regulatory reforms that he said would enable small businesses to continue to innovate and create new jobs.

“The Trump administration and Administrator Pruitt are walking back the blatant regulatory overreach of their predecessors,” Fitzgerald said in an email.

“In this case, the Obama EPA, at the urging of a few corporate elites, sought to regulate gliders out of existence. We cannot thank President Trump enough for his relentless work to save small businesses and promote American industry first,” he said.

“Fitzgerald USA is a family-run business, and I am pleased that we have been able to create good-paying jobs and other opportunities in rural communities. Our mission is to bring jobs back to the proud, hardworking people left behind by manufacturers who offshored jobs just to save a few bucks.”

The comment period for the rule Pruitt proposed to reverse the Obama EPA regulations on glider trucks ended on Jan. 5 and is expected to move up to the Office of Management and Budget for interagency review within the next few weeks.

“Administrator Pruitt is doing a great job protecting the environment while adhering to the rule of law,” Toomey told The Daily Signal in an email.

“His opponents believe that they can make enough noise to have him removed. President Trump is far too smart to fall for such a scam by the liberal elitists and Volvo, a foreign truck manufacturer.”

Critics of glider trucks are “being disingenuous” when they claim those trucks exceed emissions standards, Toomey explained, because they fail to point out that glider trucks actually emit less carbon dioxide than newer ones.

The challenge with emissions for glider trucks relates to particulate matter, not carbon dioxide, he said.

The EPA defines particulate matter as “a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets that get into the air” and “cause serious health effects” if inhaled. The Clean Air Act requires the agency to set national air quality standards for particulate matter.

An EPA laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, performed tests in October on two glider trucks and found they exceeded emissions standards for particulate matter. But Milloy, who is also the editor of JunkScience.com, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview that the tests were performed under questionable circumstances—without Pruitt’s knowledge and with no peer review process.

Moreover, what he called the “renegade report” was not printed on an official EPA letterhead and did not receive an internal EPA document number, he said.

“This was an easy layup for Volvo and the new truck industry at the Obama EPA,” Milloy said. “This was classic rent-seeking. With more stringent air standards, Volvo gets to sell more expensive items.

“The fact that this would happen with the Obama administration is not surprising. But what is surprising and disturbing is to have these bogus tests take place in the new administration without Pruitt’s knowledge,” he said.

With regard to some of the environmental concerns that have been raised about glider trucks, Fitzgerald pushed back on what he described as “false narratives” Volvo has circulated to environmental groups. He also explained why glider trucks might have some environmental benefits.

Environmental groups have been misled by the Volvo Trucks of the world that have actively sought to kill off the glider industry for years.

They were given misleading and unfounded data points about glider emissions, and they were encouraged to repeat false narratives about the carbon footprint and efficiency of gliders. In reality, gliders are the best example of ‘upcycling’ that the truck industry has.

Upcycling is the process of transforming products into new materials or products of better quality for better environmental value. It is a concept that is very familiar to environmental groups.

Every glider assembled accounts for approximately 4,000 pounds of upcycled cast steel that would otherwise be junked and tossed in a landfill. Glider assemblers are developing ways to make trucks that are more fuel-efficient and emit less carbon dioxide than new trucks, all without adding to our nation’s landfills.

The Daily Signal contacted Volvo and asked why the company saw fit to lobby for regulatory changes on emissions that would impact the glider truck industry. John Mies, a communications official with Volvo Group of North America, responded in an email and said, “We are seeking a level playing field. All manufacturers, whether of original equipment or gliders, should have to abide by the same emissions regulations.”

He also sent testimony from Susan Alt, Volvo’s senior vice president of public affairs, that was delivered as part of an EPA hearing on Dec. 5.

Her remarks read in part:

We are here today to voice opposition to EPA’s proposal to repeal the emissions standards for heavy-duty glider vehicles. A glider vehicle is essentially a new truck that’s been equipped with a used engine.

Their original purpose was to allow truck owners to salvage working powertrains after severe accidents by installing the wrecked truck’s engine and transmission into new cab-and-chassis assemblies.

The glider vehicle market was just a few hundred per year for decades, and Volvo has never objected to gliders used for the aforementioned purpose.

In fact, the Phase 2 rule as finalized provides for production of a volume of glider vehicles to meet this market need. In 2010, a significant emission reduction was required for newly manufactured diesel engines.

Not coincidentally, we’ve watched the glider-vehicle market grow more than tenfold since 2010, now reaching ‘significantly over 10,000 gliders in 2015,’ according to EPA records.

Why did the volume grow so dramatically? Because some companies exploited the opportunity to offer glider vehicles with older ‘pre-emissions’ engines to customers seeking to avoid modern emissions-control systems.

Today, almost no glider vehicles use 2 of 3 donor components from the same truck to be installed into his new truck. Most glider vehicles today are mass produced, custom-built new trucks with donor components that come from any possible source.

Most glider vehicle buyers today are not small operators trying to salvage their truck after an accident or unable to afford new trucks. The glider buyers today are small, medium, and even large fleets buying new replacement trucks, equipped with noncompliant engines, to haul for-hire loads on America’s highways.

These glider vehicles not only skirt current emission regulations, but they also skirt safety regulations, such as electronic stability control—technologies that help keep both the driver of the truck and the cars safer.

But Nick Loris, an energy policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation, sees an effort at work to put small business at a disadvantage.

“These onerous regulations are the epitome of the federal government crushing small business,” he said in an email. “In many cases, it is a single individual who owns a truck or a small fleet of trucks. The businesses that have and use gliders passionately defended them, because the gliders often have better gas mileage and break down less.

“Regulating them out of existence would also likely backfire environmentally, by forcing companies to hold onto their older trucks longer, rather than buy new ones,” he said.

In her testimony, Alt insisted that the proposed rule change “will hurt a much larger number of small businesses who are not selling glider vehicles.”

She also warns that glider vehicles will undercut new-vehicle sales and that that would directly affect the “livelihoods of the more than 14,000 Americans” these dealers employ.

Where the interests of small business are concerned, Fitzgerald anticipates that the Trump EPA’s planned regulatory relief will help to level competition between larger and small companies while providing smaller trucking fleets with affordable options.

“The vast majority of our customers are small fleet owners and owner-operators who cannot afford to buy or maintain new trucks, but nonetheless want the latest safety features, amenities, and styling,” he said in an email.

“Small fleet owners and owner-operators buy gliders because the alternatives—sticking with their old, unsafe truck or buying another used truck that likely lacks the latest safety features—are not viable, long-term business strategies.”

Fitzgerald added: “Consolidation in the trucking industry is making life increasingly difficult for independent owner-operators and small fleets. Gliders—which are more reliable, cost less to buy and maintain, and are more fuel-efficient than new trucks—help them keep the lights on and the doors open.

“Gliders allow the small fleets and owner-operators to stay competitive with the big corporate fleets that want to eat their lunch. Destroying the glider industry would put tens of thousands of people out of business, and the impact on small businesses and rural communities throughout the country would be profound,” he said.

SOURCE 





DOT Repeals Rule Forcing States To Monitor Tailpipe GHG Emissions

President Donald Trump’s administration repealed a rule forcing states to comply with a policy monitoring greenhouse gas levels from tailpipes of American automobiles.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) signed a final rule May 22 that eliminates a mandate requiring state agencies to establish emission targets, calculate their progress toward those targets, and determine a plan of action if they failed to make progress during a performance period.

The rule repealed the performance management measure assessing the percent change in tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions on the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) measure. It also measured total annual tons of carbon emissions from all on-road mobile sources.

States and other locals across the country can still pursue similar actions locally. The repeal of the GHG measure does not affect implementation of the other national performance management measures states are responsible for administering.

This is one of several regulations Trump’s administration has sought to rollback.

Trump announced in April preparations to scrap an Obama-era rule that would have dramatically ratcheted up fuel efficiency guidelines over the course of a decade. The plan would also target California’s ability to set its own vehicle efficiency standards.

California’s high standards have forced automakers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles, which ultimately effects national efficiency standards. Former President Barack Obama aimed to raise the average fuel economy of automobiles to more than 50 miles per gallon within 10 years.

The Golden State got permissions from the Obama administration to issue its own, higher emissions standards.

They require cars get 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The rules would cut 540 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions and save consumers money, officials estimated.

SOURCE 

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************