The New York Times reported yesterday that Secretary of State John Kerry is working closely with his "foreign counterparts" to ensure that the UN-backed climate change deal "does not legally qualify as a treaty," which would require Senate approval. Obama "pledged" yesterday that the United States will reduce its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by up to 28%, using executive orders and federal agencies to bypass congressional approval. Even EPA head Gina McCarthy said the "regulations are likely to be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court."
Michael Bastasch, a reporter at The Daily Caller, writes that White House spokesperson Josh Earnest said Tuesday "that senators who 'deny' man-made global warming probably shouldn’t have any say over an international agreement to cut carbon dioxide emissions." Earnest said at the press briefing that many of the Senators at least, "deny the fact that climate change even exists. So I’m not sure they would be in the best position to decide whether or not a climate change agreement is one that is worth entering into."
The Obama administration's plan for U.N. climate change talks encountered swift opposition after its release Tuesday, with Republican leaders warning other countries to "proceed with caution" in negotiations with Washington because any deal could be later undone. Republican critics say the administration lacks the political and legal backing to commit the United States to an international agreement. Some observers said that resistance to the administration's climate policies leaves foreign governments questioning whether Obama's commitments can last. --Valerie Volcovici, Reuters, 1 April 2015
President Barack Obama’s pledge to the United Nations Tuesday to sharply cut greenhouse-gas emissions relies on being able to rebuff legal and legislative challenges — and the continuing availability of cheap natural gas. It’s no slam dunk. The power plant rule faces its first court test next month, and the final rule, set to come out within the next six months, is likely to be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said Monday. --Mark Drajem, Bloomberg, 1 April 2015
There is a wonderful predictability about the smug political left. Its members always want you to do as they say – not as they do (controlling the world is what lefties think they do best after all). The Guardian is as good a place as any to find such socially progressive hypocrisy.
A recent podcast released by the paper contains a remarkable conversation about the evils of fossil fuel between editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger and some adoring acolytes. See the excerpt below as they attempt to grapple with the question of what happens when the Guardian’s quest to drive other companies to divest themselves of oil company investments – all in the name of saving the planet – meets the harsh reality that they too are guilty of holding the same financial interests.
The views of researchers skeptical of the theory humans are causing potentially catastrophic climate change have become scarce in news stories covering the topic.
A recent study by George Mason University researchers published in the trade magazine Journalism found contrarian views on the subject are no longer welcome in many of the nation’s newspapers. The authors of “Covering Global Warming in Dubious Times: Environmental Reporters in the New Media Ecosystem,” interviewed nearly a dozen journalists who regularly report on climate change, formerly known as global warming.
This piece is in response to a Congress Blog piece by Sylvie Stein of Forecast the Facts that takes issue with O'Keefe's previous piece in the Contributors section.
Sylvie Stein's recent piece in the Congress Blog, "Don't help the merchants of doubt," tells a great deal about Stein and her organization. Stein and the authors of "Merchants of Doubt" are skilled in distortion and being practitioners of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, especially the rule to "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
It is telling that Stein wants her views and those of climate alarmists to be conveyed by the media, but not those of people who challenge them. What does that say about her organization's views of the Constitution and the importance of free speech to a free society? Movements to suppress free speech believe that the end justifies the means. That is unsettling.
A few years ago, a journalist asked me for my thoughts on the importance of “Earth Hour” – which was reprised this past weekend. What I told him applies today, perhaps even more so.
I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance in the 20th century depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity.
Giving women the freedom to work outside the home depended on the availability of electrical appliances that free up time from domestic chores. Getting children out of menial labour and into schools depended on the same thing, as well as on the ability to provide safe indoor lighting for reading.
A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.
A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.
President Obama is expected today to bypass Congress again with a pledge to cut carbon emissions of up to 28 percent as part of a global climate treaty. By using federal agencies like the EPA to invoke stringent limitations on carbon dioxide emissions, Obama can keep his pledge without congressional approval. White House sources say the United Nations is working on this treaty with the United States and other countries. Under the U.S. Constitution, any International treaty must be approved by Congress, and there is little bipartisan support for the plan as it is expected to hit businesses very hard.