Obama can’t vote “present” on the Keystone pipeline forever, though he can probably string it out a while longer. He won’t want to punt it to the next president, though, because it might be a Republican who will approve it on Day One. Maybe Obama could just propose an alternate route through Guantanamo, since Gitmo is going to need a new use soon, right?
Last month I predicted:
What Obama may do is tentatively approve Keystone along with a major policy shift that will please environmentalists and subject Keystone to further and perhaps fatal delays. There is talk that the administration may expand the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to require that proposed projects like Keystone document their impact on global warming in the permit approval process.
About two weeks ago the Obama administration quietly and without fanfare took a step that might accomplish the double game of “approving” Keystone subject to conditions that mean it cannot be built. Last week, the news dribbled out that the Obama administration, as a part of a seemingly minor rule-making about energy standards for microwave ovens, slipped in a recalculation of the “social cost of carbon” that could potentially tip the scales heavily against the Keystone pipeline—among other energy-intensive developments—in the course of the required cost-benefit analysis that subsequent rule-makings have to conduct.
Alarmists pushing the natural climate-change denial propaganda have been eviscerated by the overwhelming force of recent empirical evidence - surprise, surprise, the cascade of evidence has even forced the extreme-left NY Times and The Economist to admit their previous beliefs reporting of disastrous global warming myths was without scientific merit.
This plot of major temperature datasets from leading climate research agencies reveals multiple myth-busting facts - much to the chagrin of anti-CO2, global warming alarmists (RIGHT).
Before pursuing the myth-busting, a small explanation may help: this chart depicts the length of slight/flat global temperature trends, without the usual monthly datapoint variability plotted. In addition, the incessant growth of atmospheric CO2 levels is plotted.
Now on to those busted "global warming" myths. From this chart of empirical evidence, we can safely conclude the following:
Katrina Damage © pattie - Fotolia.comTwo recent decisions continue the trend against plaintiffs in the climate change/public nuisance area. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week declined the request by an Alaskan fishing village to overturn a lower court ruling that the Clean Air Act preempts a federal common law claim of public nuisance attributed to so-called global warming and climate change. See Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., No. 12—1072 (cert. denied 5/20/13).
We have posted on this case before. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in 2012 that the Clean Air Act, and Environmental Protection Agency regulatory actions taken under the statute, displace the common law claim that various energy producing companies should be liable for the cost of relocating the village to avoid flooding and coastal erosion. The Ninth Circuit ruling relied on the Supreme Court's prior decision in American Electric Power Co. Inc. v. Connecticut, 131 S.Ct 2527 (2011), dealing with the possibility of injunctive relief; plaintiffs here failed in their petition to the Supreme Court seeking a ruling that the federal statute does not displace common law claims for damages.
While the nation tries to come to grips with the cascade of scandals involving the Obama administration, a significant phenomenon has been occurring. It is the demise of the global warming/climate change hoax that has driven national and international policies since the 1980s.
Directed from within the bowels of the most corrupt international organization on planet Earth, the United Nations, the hoax originally generated the Kyoto Protocols in December 1997 to set limits on the generation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The UN’s climate charlatans claimed that CO2 was causing the Earth to dramatically warm. It was a lie. The U.S. Senate unanimously refused to ratify it and, in 2011, Canada withdrew from it.
U.S. Rep David McKinleyLast month, U.S. Rep. David McKinley (R.-WV) hosted an unbiased climate change panel discussion in Fairmont, West Virginia. Experts from both sides of the climate debate participated without restrictions of any kind.
McKinley’s open-minded approach is one that should be copied across the United States. Considering what’s at stake—a human-induced eco-collapse if former Vice-President Al Gore and his allies are correct, or, if skeptics are right, a waste of billions of dollars and the loss of millions of jobs as we experiment with a switch away from coal and other hydrocarbon fuels to alternative energy sources—the risks are too high to do anything less.
No matter what Gore and 350.org founder Bill McKibben tell us, experts in the field know that climate science is highly immature. We are in a period of “negative discovery,” in that the more we learn about climate, the more we realize we do not know. Rather than “remove the doubt,” as Gore tells us should be done, we must recognize the doubt in this, arguably the most complex science ever tackled.
Gina McCarthy, current nominee
to head the EPA (wikimedia)President Obama intends to unveil a package of second-term climate change policies in July, according to a news account.
Bloomberg reports that Obama, at closed-door fundraisers in recent weeks, “has been telling Democratic party donors that he will unveil new climate proposals in July.”
The story cites sources that attended the events or have been briefed. Bloomberg notes that a person “close to the White House” said final decisions are still being made about the plan.
Obama has vowed to take new executive-level actions if Congress doesn’t pass a major climate law, and the prospects for Capitol Hill action are remote.
Spiraling costs in Germany for developing renewable energy sources could damage the country's economic competitiveness and need to be scaled back, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Wednesday—without elaborating much on how. Energy policy has become a hot issue in campaigning for Germany's parliamentary elections in September, with households and businesses alike complaining about big energy bills. Many European companies are also concerned that high electricity costs at home are becoming increasingly unsustainable, particularly as their U.S. rivals benefit from lower energy prices resulting from the shale gas boom. --Jan Hromadko, The Wall Street Journal, 14 June 2013
Is it easier just following the herd?The bottom line is that a third of people are concerned enough to be willing to act, a third say they are concerned but are only paying it lip service, and a third are openly skeptical.
What matters is that 63% of people around the world don't want their governments to take any money from them to address environmental issues.
There is constant media spin that skeptics are a tiny fringe minority. (See Al Gore deny a third of the population. See the BBC call them mavericks and say they give too much weight to “fringe views”.) The marketeers pushing the meme know that many people are swayed away from “extreme” views and towards the dominant paradigm. Life is just “easier” if you follow the herd, so the big-scare campaign scores a free kick if the public believe that skeptics are rare. If the media reported the situation accurately, more people would be happy to sit in the “skeptical” camp as it would be perceived as equally valid.
The New York Times is pleased with Mayor Michael Bloomberg's 438-page, $20 billion plan to protect New York from the effects of future hurricanes. It notes benignly that the cost is probably an underestimate but agrees with the mayor, "Whether you believe climate change is real or not is beside the point; the bottom line is we can't run the risk."
Really? Imagine the argument: "Whether you believe zombies are real or not is beside the point. ... We can't run the risk." Clearly one's willingness to undertake these sorts of preparations depends completely on whether the perceived danger is real.
There is an interesting post by David Middleton over at WUWT. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Institute for Energy Research (IER), Middleton notes that 2,298 permanent jobs have been created since 2009 on green energy projects in the U.S., mostly solar, wind, and geothermal jobs (see table below). Those jobs were created by $26.32 billion in loan guarantees by DOE. That comes to $11.45 million per job created.
Middleton says of this: “Clearly, in terms of ‘bang for the buck,’ government programs that coddle renewable energy are losers. In terms of jobs, the losers are the American workers who would otherwise be gainfully employed but for the tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars on the administration’s obsession with ‘green energy.’ As the economy continues to suffer and dollars for federal programs get harder to come by, it is getting increasingly difficult to defend a program that costs so much and produces so little.”
A paper published today in Global Environmental Change finds, "Many studies have shown a general decline of public concern about climate change or vice versa a rise in public climate-change skepticism, in particular in the U.S. and other Anglo-Saxon countries.
There is a vivid debate on whether this is a global phenomenon [and] on which factors explain the decline." Could it be that following Climategate 1 & 2, and subsequent revelations, the public no longer trusts political activists masquerading as climate scientists?
On noes, we're doomed!Bonn - As UN negotiators roll up their sleeves for the last push towards a universal climate deal, many fear their end-goal of halting global warming at two degrees Celsius is moving out of reach.
In the corridors of UN climate gatherings, negotiators concede the window of opportunity appears to be closing.
Few will admit this on the record, and none will even consider shifting the goal posts even as science points to a likely four-degree increase on current trends.
“The two-degree limit is perhaps symbolic, but if we exceed it, we take big risks,” said climatologist Jean Jouzel - pointing out the world is not geared for the climate extremes likely to result from a higher level of warming.